COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA

Eastern Regional Office

Quality Management Review

of the

CHILD WELFARE DIVISION

VIRGINIA BEACH DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

July 2012

2

TABLE of CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE NUMBER

LETTER OF ENGAGEMENT 3

REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

PERMANENCY (FOSTER CARE and ADOPTION) 14

CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES 41

RESOURCE FAMILIES 47

INTERVIEWS WITH SUPERVISORS and OTHER PARTNERS 54

INTERVIEW WITH JDR COURT JUDGE 59

INTERVIEWS WITH VBDHS DIRECTOR, CITY MANAGER & OTHERS 60

EMPLOYEE SURVEY 62

APPENDIX 1 - VIRGINIA CHILDREN’S SERVICES PRACTICE MODEL 70

3

4

Virginia Department of Social Services

VDSS Review of the Child Welfare Division

of the

Virginia Beach Department of Human Services

VDSS Quality Management Review Team Members

Stephen Blythe, Regional Director, Eastern Regional Office

Patricia Panels, Regional Administrative Manager, Eastern Regional Office

Jane Joyner, Permanency Program Consultant, Eastern Regional Office

Gail Heath-Davidson, Child Protective Services Program Consultant, Eastern Regional Office

Flora Harris, Resource Family Program Consultant, Eastern Regional Office

Therese Wolf, Permanency Program Manager, Division of Family Services

Vernon Simmons, Training Manager, Division of Family Services

Cynthia Bauer, Permanency Policy Consultant, Division of Family Services

Laura Polk, Curriculum Developer, Division of Family Services

Elizabeth Bowen, Quality Analyst, Division of Family Services

Lytricia Toler, Quality Analyst, Division of Family Services

Monica Hockaday, Child Protective Services Consultant, Central Regional Office

Sandra Bell, Resource Family Consultant, Northern Regional Office

Mary Walter, Child Protective Services Policy Specialist, Division of Family Services

Tracey Jackson, Family Engagement Sr. Program Consultant, Division of Family Services

Lana Mullins (off-site), Resource Family Consultant, Western Regional Office

Mary Norris (off-site), Child Protective Services Program Consultant, Western Regional Office

Ed Schuster (off-site), Child Protective Services Program Consultant, Northern Regional Office

5

VDSS Quality Management Review of the

Child Welfare Division

of the

Virginia Beach Department of Human Services

March 2012

Executive Summary

The Virginia Department of Social Services (VDSS) conducted a Quality Management Review (QMR) of

the Child Welfare Division of the Virginia Beach Department of Human Services (VBDHS) during the

month of March 2012. The on-site portion of the review was conducted during the period March 6 – 9,

2012 by a fifteen member team of VDSS staff from different parts of the state. The review was initiated

due to multiple, significant programmatic, practice and service delivery concerns expressed by the Child

Welfare Program Consultants at the VDSS Eastern Regional Office in 2011 and early 2012. The primary

focus of the QMR is on the social services being provided to children and families in Virginia Beach

based on the Virginia Children’s Services Practice Model (Practice Model) and outcome measures of the

Federal Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) criteria.

In December 2007 the VDSS began a statewide reform initiative, known as the Virginia Children’s

Services System Transformation (Transformation), to increase the effectiveness in assisting at-risk

children and their families strengthen permanent family connections for children and youth. The goals of

this initiative were: (1) to increase the number and rate at which youth in foster care move into permanent

family arrangements (permanency), (2) to increase the number of placements of at-risk children and youth

with relatives and/or foster parents, (3) to devote more resources to community-based care to prevent

children from entering foster care unnecessarily, and (4) to embrace management by data and outcome-

based performance management.

A Council on Reform (CORE) was established to lead the statewide Transformation initiative. Thirteen

local agencies, including the Virginia Beach Department of Human Services, made up the initial CORE

group whose major purpose was to develop a common philosophy and methodology to guide this

statewide paradigm shift in child welfare practice to improve services to and outcomes for children and

families. A Practice Model (see Appendix 1), was developed to serve as guidance and assist in the

implementation of the statewide reform.

The majority of the 120 local departments of social services in the state have fully embraced the

Children’s Services System Transformation and the Practice Model. As a result of this major statewide

reform initiative, there has been a significant decrease in the number of children in foster care, a

6

significant decrease in the number of children in congregate care and group home settings and an on-

going reduction in the number of children coming into foster care. In December 2007, the thirteen CORE

local agencies accounted for almost 50% of the state’s foster care population.

Review of critical reform building blocks to include current practices involving Managing by Data,

Resource and Family Development, Family Engagement, Family Partnership Meetings and Community

Resource Development practices at the VBDHS are key components of the Children’s Services

Transformation and, therefore, are included in the focus of this review.

As a part of this review, child welfare supervisors completed a Family Services Self-Assessment

questionnaire. Interviews were conducted with all of the approximately 105 local agency staff involved in

the delivery of child welfare services as well as the local agency Director, Deputy Director, Director of

the Adult and Family Services division, IT Manager, CSA Coordinator, supervisory staff, community

partners, the Chief Judge of the Va. Beach Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts, Assistant City

Attorneys, the Virginia Beach City Manager and sixteen resource families. An electronic, confidential

survey was sent to all 105 child welfare staff. Seventy-nine out of 105 (75%) of the child welfare staff

participated in and responded to the confidential survey.

Permanency (Foster Care and Adoption) Program Review Summary:

Fifty permanency cases were selected to review the department’s case practices based on the Virginia

Children’s Services Practice Model’s core practice functions. Individual interviews were conducted with

all social workers and supervisors assigned to the Foster Care and Adoption programs and collateral

agency partners. A Child Welfare Self-Assessment document was completed by all of the supervisors.

Although the VBDHS was one of thirteen CORE agencies, the agency has not embraced and does not

practice the tenets of Transformation or the Practice Model. The staff needs to fully embrace the practice

of Family Engagement in order to help provide more positive outcomes for children and families. The

Director and other members of Management need to require accountability and incorporation of Family

Partnership Meetings (FPMs) as a regular practice for every child and family, when appropriate, to help

ensure more positive outcomes. FPMs should be held at every critical case point decision: when there is a

change of placement, change of a goal, prior to reunification, prior to a child’s 18th

birthday and at the

request of the child, family, resource parent or social worker. Only a few of the 27 workers interviewed

demonstrated an understanding of Transformation or the Practice Model.

Case reviews revealed that service plans are developed but documentation does not show evidence that

the family is involved. Service plans are generalized and do not clearly identify and individualize the

circumstances, strengths or needs of the child, parents or prior custodian. Cases reviewed and social

workers interviewed reveal that most permanency workers do not understand or are not aware of the

principles of Transformation or the Practice Model.

During individual interviews, many permanency workers stated that they had never observed or been a

participant in a FPM. Because the agency does not have an organized and solely identified Engagement

7

Program, FPMs are not an expectation or practice for foster care and adoption cases and, therefore, they

occur on an infrequent basis.

Relative searches were completed inconsistently. There was insufficient documentation in OASIS, the

state’s child welfare data base, or in the hard copy case records to support that thorough relative searches

were completed or continued for significant individuals or as permanent families throughout the child’s

involvement with the child welfare system. Based on information contained in the case records and

interviews with staff, the agency’s practice is to only contact family members when suggested by the

parents.

Permanent Foster Care was the selected goal by the VBDHS after several permanency planning hearings

were held or when parents or prior custodians did not make significant progress in reuniting with their

children. Although the goal of Permanent Foster Care is an allowable goal, it should only be used after all

of the other goals have been examined. In contrast to child welfare practice at other local agencies in the

state, the VBDHS highly promotes the goal of Permanent Foster Care. Accordingly, as of January 2012,

the VBDHS had the second highest number of children in the state with the goal of Permanent

Foster Care.

Several youth placed in residential and group home settings by the VBDHS had approved Permanent

Foster Care goals. This practice is contrary to state law and must be stopped immediately.

According to VA Code 63.2-908, a child with the goal of Permanent Foster Care is to be placed in the

residence of a person(s) who is/are determined to be appropriate in meeting the child’s needs on a long-

term basis. Residential facilities and group homes are not personal residences and, therefore, are not

allowed by state law for placement of children with the goal of Permanent Foster Care. Placements in

non-family settings should be temporary, should focus on individual children’s needs and should prepare

them for return to family and community life. The VBDHS staff should meet routinely with the

residential treatment facility or group home staff and discuss the process of a step-down plan for the

children in these types of facilities as a step towards removing the child from the facility. This step-down

approach may include the possibility of family members being involved, if not for placement, by taking

an active role in the child’s life with visits, phone and email contacts. Management at one residential

facility used regularly by the VBDHS stated during an interview that they have tried, unsuccessfully, to

get the staff at the VBDHS to work with them on several step-down situations. In each such case the

VBDHS staff refused to participate in discussions involving a step-down approach and stated the children

needed to be kept in a residential facility.

Children placed in residential or group home settings had been in a facility’s care for long time periods

with multiple placements. There was no documented evidence in the case records that efforts were being

made by staff to continue the search for relatives or to seek support systems for lifelong connections for

youth. The VBDHS has the highest number of children placed in congregate care (residential

facilities and group homes) in the state.

Appeal hearings after termination of parental rights often take from several months to several years.

Incorporating Family Engagement practices (e.g., routinely communicating with parents and family

8

members throughout the family’s judicial process) could help to resolve many of the adversarial

relationships between the VBDHS staff and parents.

Many adoption home studies for already-approved resource parents are delayed, and as a result,

postponing permanency for children. The review team did not find evidence of child specific recruitment

campaigns for special-needs children with severe disabilities or multiple placements.

Data taken from SafeMeasures for the fourth quarter of years 2008 through 2011 shows that of the seven

Level 3 Agencies in the Eastern Region, five of the seven agencies significantly decreased the number of

foster children in care. In contrast, the Virginia Beach DHS had an increase in the number of children in

foster care from 2008 through 2011. (See data from SafeMeasures in the chart on page 25.)

The most significant change is noted in the number of children placed in residential and group home

settings. Five large agencies in the Eastern region (Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth

and Norfolk) showed significant decreases in the number of children in congregate care. In comparison,

the data for the VBDHS shows that the number of children in congregate care has increased over the

baseline 2008 year and the total number of children in care has remained substantially the same.

(See data from SafeMeasures in the chart on page 25.)

Six out of ten (60%) of the residential foster care staff interviewed expressed to the interviewers local

agency practices and beliefs that are in opposition to the VDSS Transformation initiatives and the Practice

Model. They hold strong beliefs that most children placed in residential facilities or group homes should

not be placed in any family setting since they had previous behavioral, substance abuse and/or mental

health issues and the staff must look out for the safety of the citizens in the community.

This is a work place culture change needing to be addressed and changed immediately by the

Director of the VBDHS.

Child Protective Services Program Review Summary:

A total of 100 CPS case records consisting of 68 ongoing records and 32 referrals were selected for

review. Unit interviews were conducted with CPS staff and a Self-Assessment document was completed

by supervisory staff.

The Intake Unit staff expressed concerns that they are unable to take lunch or breaks unless they can

secure their own coverage. The Unit is staffed by four social workers. The current phone system does not

track how many CPS calls are waiting to be answered or are lost by not being answered in a timely

manner.

The Family Assessment and Investigations Unit staff stated that the VBDHS management instituted a

monthly standard of no more than 7 overdue referrals for each worker with reprimands for non-

compliance. Currently nineteen staff exceed this limit. Staff stated that they are not able to meet the new

standard because it is too strict. Supervisors should perform a complete review (not a partial review which

is the current practice) of the referrals and send them back to the staff one time for appropriate

9

action/follow-up on all of the deficiencies so they can be corrected and re-submitted to the supervisor

within the required time frames to ensure compliance.

No Family Partnership Meetings were documented in the Family Assessment (FA) or Investigation (INV)

referrals. Two referrals reviewed involved children being taken into protective custody. This is one of

the decision points when a Family Partnership Meeting (FPM) is to be held. This is consistent with the

VBDHS management not embracing and implementing the Transformation initiatives and the Practice

Model. At the time of the review, there were only seven facilitators for FPMs. If the agency were

conducting all of the FPMs needing to be conducted, due to the high caseload several more trained

facilitators will be needed to conduct FPMs.

VDSS Broadcast 6142 issued on March 16, 2010, strongly encouraged all child welfare staff in each local

agency statewide to take the on-line course, CSW 4010 and the instructor lead course, CSW 4020. These

two courses focus on family engagement and the content and methodology of conducting Family

Partnership Meetings. Only two VBDHS CPS staff have completed any Family Engagement training. In

contrast, four other large, Level 3 agencies in the Eastern Region (Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk

and Portsmouth) have between 20 and 57 child welfare staff who have completed both of these courses.

Policy is not being followed when allegations of abuse/neglect in foster homes is reported. Allegations in

at least five different foster care situations were never taken as valid reports and investigated. The

practice may be to remove the alleged victim child or close the foster home.

During staff interviews, CPS staff indicated the in-house training program for new CPS staff has not been

offered for some time. Management has responded that experienced workers mentor, shadow and train

new hirers while the in-house training program is being reestablished.

FPMs are not held in those high-risk cases within 30 days of the case being opened to services, reflecting

an overall lack of engagement with families. Service plans are not targeted to the needs of the family and

there is little or no family input in the development of the service plans, as required.

Resource Family Program Review Summary:

Thirty-eight cases were selected for review. Individual interviews were held with all eleven staff members

and with sixteen resource families.

There was insufficient or, in some cases, no documentation entered in the resource screen in OASIS.

When contacts and visits were entered, very limited documentation was provided.

Six cases were reviewed with allegations of abuse and neglect by resource families, according to the

child’s foster care record. In four of the cases, there was no documentation of CPS allegations in OASIS

and none of the hard copy records contained documentation regarding the allegations. One case indicated

that the abuser was “unknown.”

There was very limited documentation of resource families’ competencies (skills and abilities) to meet the

needs of the children. Agency team staffings to determine approval/denial of prospective resource

10

families are held but, according to staff, all decisions to approve the families are determined based solely

on the desires of the supervisor without consideration of the input provided by members of the staffing

team. There is no documentation added to the mutual family assessment when families are approved as

TAFY families (a therapeutic foster parent program) regarding additional training or their ability to parent

the children in the TAFY program. The TAFY program provides specialized foster care for children

residing in the community who have emotional and/or behavioral issues.

The agency does not make diligent efforts to engage resource families in working with biological

families. Potential resource families were told during an orientation training session, attended by the

reviewers, that the potential resource families would not have to communicate with the biological

families. In another training session, also attended by the reviewers, potential resource families were told

it was their choice whether or not the resource family wanted to work/communicate with the biological

family.

Only two of the sixteen families interviewed have participated in Family Partnership Meetings and none

of the families interviewed have received training in Family Partnership Meetings except for the general

information provided about FPMs during pre-service training.

Within the TAFY unit (therapeutic foster parent program), the majority of the recruitment for foster

parents is only general recruitment. There is limited child-specific recruitment for placements in the

therapeutic foster homes.

Leadership

The Virginia Beach Department of Human Services is a large, complex organization offering an array of

services through the Division of Adult and Family Services, Financial Assistance Division, the Juvenile

Detention Center, Mental Health and Substance Abuse and the Pendleton Child Services Center. There

are approximately 1,041 FTEs employed with the VBDHS. Leadership of the VBDHS is provided by the

Director and the Deputy Director.

The Director of the Adult and Family Services Division is responsible for Adult Protective Services,

Child and Youth Services, Child Welfare Services, Foster Care, Adoptions, Child Protective Services,

Prevention and Support Services, Employment Services and Day Care Support Services. There are

approximately 161 FTEs in the Adult and Family Services Division. Eighteen supervisors report to the

Director. Thirteen of the eighteen supervisors work with Child Welfare programs.

Staff Feedback/Major Concerns:

Many child welfare staff reported to the Review Team that there is low morale in the child welfare

division, that staff members are looking for new jobs, that there are inconsistent policies/practices among

supervisors and there is an overall lack of concern for employees. Caseloads, especially in the CPS day

unit, are unmanageable and punitive action is allegedly taken when an employee fails to meet the agency

standards. Staff reported that families are made to accept agency services by threat of court action if they

do not agree/comply. Because of the staff turnover, the amount of time to hire and train new workers and

11

inexperienced staff needing close supervision, overtime has increased to the point where some staff

members related being stressed beyond what is acceptable.

Data Sources:

The data used in this report is taken from SafeMeasures, a web based, real-time database system which is

updated every 24 hours. VBDHS management has questioned differences in SafeMeasures data

compared to OASIS reports. SafeMeasures data may be different due to federal reporting requirements

and daily updates which occur when agencies enter new information.

MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS

The VBDHS management and staff needs to fully embrace and practice the VDSS statewide

Transformation initiative and the Practice Model immediately in order to achieve better and more

positive outcomes for the children and families they serve.

The VBDHS needs to work to reduce the number of children in congregate care (residential

facilities and group homes) by reinforcing the belief that children and youth belong in family and

community settings.

The child welfare division staff needs to spend more time and effort focusing on older foster care

youth in establishing permanent family connections.

The Family Partnership Meetings need to be a strong program and practice recognized by all child

welfare staff as a required component to all casework.

Family Partnership Meetings should be held at every critical case point decision and specifically,

within the Permanency Program, when there is a change of placement, change of a goal, prior to

reunification, prior to a child’s 18th

birthday and at the request of the child, family, resource parent

or social worker.

More qualified, trained facilitators are needed to be available for FPMs on a daily basis, including

emergency removals and critical case point decision meetings.

Supervisors need to be consistent in implementing agency goals, practices and policies.

Internal communications should involve input from line staff in order to increase ownership and a

sense of satisfaction by the workers.

Supervisors need to be available to staff for consultation when needed.

Staff needs to have input in individual unit decision making.

Systemic issues in the CPS unit need to be addressed immediately: High turnover in this unit, the

amount of time to staff cases, the high workloads, the expected amount of significant staff

overtime for case documentation and low morale. Management needs to assess the need for

additional workers and/or redistributing worker caseloads or reassigning workers among units in

order to better manage existing and future caseloads.

The City Manager and the Director of the VBDHS should work together to assess the current

VBDHS organizational structure to determine how the child welfare division can be reorganized

12

to have a more effective chain of command and provide for more effective delivery of services to

children and families.

The City Manager and the Director of the VBDHS need to work together to assess the Director of

the Adult and Family Services Division whose leadership and/or management style is perceived as

not effective within the division.

There needs to be an assessment to include an honest, fact-based performance review of the

supervisors in this division, some of whom are not providing effective supervision of their units.

This assessment also may require providing additional supervisors to direct the efforts of the staff

in the Child Welfare Division.

The Adult and Family Services Division must be reorganized to significantly reduce the number

of direct reports to the Director of the division. Currently there are 18 direct reports, which is an

unmanageable situation and is perhaps a major contributing factor in the perceived lack of

effectiveness of the division Director and problems with staff as reported in the confidential

Employee Survey and during individual staff interviews.

The Director of the VBDHS must be more involved in and knowledgeable about the work of the

supervisors and staff in the social services side of the organization, particularly in the child welfare

division. The Director’s current span of control and responsibilities is too great for any one person

to effectively manage. In order to provide for the proper and effective administration of social

services, the City Manager and the Director need to have serious discussions and a detailed

assessment on the merits of changing the present DHS organizational structure to separate the

social services organization from the current structure and have a Director of Social Services and a

separate Director of Mental Health and Substance Abuse.

The VBDHS should strongly consider collaborating with several other, large DSSs who have

embraced the Transformation initiatives and the Practice Model and who have made significant

improvements on positive outcomes for children and families in their localities. Doing so will

allow the VBDHS to learn best practices under common challenges faced and positive outcomes

realized from other local departments ultimately resulting in better services to children and

families.

CONCLUSION

The Child Welfare Division of the VBDHS is a division in crisis and needs the immediate and on-going

attention of the Director of the VBDHS. A significant culture change is needed. Corrective action needs to

be taken immediately. There must be a significant reorganization of the child welfare division as well as

an examination of caseload distribution, effectiveness and accountability of supervisors and a review of

work flow and processes should take place immediately. Although the VBDHS was a CORE agency

beginning in December 2007, the child welfare division has not embraced the statewide Transformation

initiative or the Virginia Practice Model, as strongly recommended by the Virginia Department of Social

Services. Very few Family Partnership Meetings are being conducted in relationship to the size of the

agency’s caseload and most of the FPMs that have been conducted do not fully comply with the VDSS

guidelines for conducting FPMs. In several program areas, the division is not operating within policy

guidelines and sound management practices. Child and Family Services Critical Outcome Scores, based

13

on federal criteria, place the VBDHS at or near the bottom in each major category when compared to the

other 120 local agencies statewide. (see chart on page 24)

The current training curriculum for resource families, developed in-house, is inadequate and, in some

cases, inappropriate and must be stopped immediately. The agency must use the standardized,

copyrighted curriculum such as that offered by PRIDE, MAPP or PATH. Other local agencies statewide

use one of these three resources to provide training for resource families.

Of the 120 local departments in the state, the VBDHS has the highest number of children in congregate

care/group home facilities, so additional efforts must be made in this area to reduce the number of

children in congregate care and return children to their families or to the community in foster homes. The

VBDHS also has the second highest number of children in the state classified with the goal of “Permanent

Foster Care”.

The Director of the Adult and Family Services Division is not effectively performing the duties required

of this position in such a large agency and appears to not have the professional respect of many of the

child welfare staff working in this division. This also was confirmed by the results of the Employee

Survey as well as during individual interviews with staff. An assessment needs to be made of the ability

of the current Director of this large child welfare division to provide the type and level of supervision

needed to effect the required changes and initiate best practice strategies recommended in this review.

Many staff conveyed to the review team that the Director of the VBDHS is largely ineffective, distant,

unresponsive to the needs of the organization and completely out of touch with the work being done by

staff and supervisors in this division.

The City Manager and the Director of the VBDHS need to collaborate and create a Corrective Action

Plan (CAP) to be submitted to the Eastern Regional Office of the VDSS on or before September 1, 2012,

in response to the numerous findings and recommendations included in this report. Adequate staffing,

proper and effective supervision, staff training, adherence to VDSS recommendations on the proper

implementation of Transformation initiatives and Virginia’s Practice Model, reducing the number of

children in congregate care or group home facilities, conducting Family Partnership Team Meetings at the

major decision points, increasing the number of trained facilitators, minimizing the practice of Permanent

Foster Care, making significant changes to the type of training curriculum offered for potential resource

families and improvement in the OASIS automated system documentation requirements are some of the

major areas that need to be addressed immediately and addressed in the CAP. The CAP must include

timelines for the achievement of each of the VDSS recommendations provided in this report. The VDSS

staff will be available to assist in this undertaking but the major initiative and overall responsibility rests

with the Director of the VBDHS.

14

PERMANENCY PROGRAMS (Foster Care and Adoption)

Jane Joyner, Permanency Program Consultant, Permanency Team Leader

The Virginia Beach Department of Human Services Permanency Program was assessed and evaluated

based on how the agency applies the tenets of the Virginia Children’s Services Practice Model and

outcomes of the Federal Child and Family Services Review Criteria (CFSR).

This review focused on the following key areas:

The adoption of the state-wide philosophy that supports family-focused, child-centered,

community-based care with emphasis on permanence for all children (Virginia Children’s

Services Practice Model (See Appendix #1)

The implementation of the statewide strategy to increase availability and utilization of relative

care and non-relative foster and adoptive placements to ensure that children can be placed in the

most family-like setting that meets their needs

The use of defined performance measures for monitoring/quality assurance system to identify and

measure outcomes, monitor quality of practice, and improve accountability

(SafeMeasures data base)

These critical reform areas were identified as the missing links in Virginia’s child welfare/child serving

system. These strategies continue to be among the key drivers for improved outcomes for children in

foster care in Virginia. Since the initiation of the Virginia Children’s Services System Transformation in

2007, the state as a whole has made remarkable improvements on the key outcomes:

A 35.5 % decrease in the congregate care population between December 2007 and May 2011

A 10.6 % increase in kinship placements in the same time frame

69 % of children discharged in SFY 2011 went to permanent homes, compared with 61% in SFY

year 2008, the baseline year for SafeMeasures data

Methodology of Selected Information for the Review:

As of 1/31/2012, monthly data reported in SafeMeasures indicated that the agency had 248 children

placed in their custody. Fifty cases (20%) were selected to determine the agency’s practices and

applications based on the Practice Model. The category breakdown for the 50 Permanency Cases

reviewed were:

No. of Cases Goal Additional information

16 Return Home 4 cases < 120 days in care

12 cases > 450 days or 15 months in care

12 Permanent Foster Care Includes placement in families and congregate care

12 Adoption Includes children placed in congregate care, sibling groups

5 Independent Living < 18 years; goal approved prior to 7/2011

5 Another Permanent Plan

Living Arrangement

Children with severe disabilities requiring long-term residential

treatment of 6 months or longer

15

The review elements included agency practices relating to how a child is placed in foster care, the

selection of the most appropriate permanency goal and timeliness to achieve the goal. The engagement of

the child’s family and significant relationships including the appropriate selection of the child’s

placements and efforts to stabilize the child were assessed.

The “Placement with Relative” goal was reviewed from the 50 selected cases and was evaluated where

the goal was either an initial, concurrent, subsequent or possible goal. Selection also included at least one

case from each social worker’s caseload.

In addition to reviewing OASIS1 (Online Automation State Information System) case information and

hard copies of the record, the following also was conducted:

Twenty-seven social workers and five supervisors who are assigned to the Foster Care and

Adoption Programs were individually interviewed.

Collateral agency partners including Juvenile Domestic Relations Court personnel, city attorneys,

guardian ad litems, and the local office of Comprehensive Services were interviewed.

The review included a large sample of congregate care cases: 21 of the 50 cases reviewed were

children placed in residential facilities or group home care.

(It is significant that the VBDHS has the highest number of children in congregate care

and/or group homes in the state.)

Review of the local department’s continuing and outdated practice of placing children in

“permanent” foster care.

Review of the local department’s practice to conduct regular Family Partnership Meetings.

Review of the critical outcome measures as provided by SafeMeasures2 in comparison with other

Eastern local agencies: all state level 3 agencies (largest in size); and overall of all agencies in the

state.

Permanency planning with the child and family focuses on preserving the family, reunifying the family,

or achieving permanency for the child with another family. It involves facilitating lifelong connections for

the child with siblings, extended family, and other significant adults. It begins with the child and family’s

first contact with the children’s services system and continues with a sense of urgency until permanency is

achieved. Permanency is only achieved when the child leaves foster care to live with a permanent family.

The three permanency goals are:

• Return Home (Reunified with his family with custody transferred back to the parents)

• Placement with a relative who obtains custody of the child

• Adoption by a relative or non-relative

Alternative foster care goals may be selected when the three priority permanency goals are determined to

be inconsistent with the child’s best interest. The two alternative goals are:

• Permanent Foster Care

• Another Planning Permanent Living Arrangement (APPLA)

1 OASIS is the online case management system for Child Protective Services, Foster Care and Adoption.

2 SafeMeasures is a custom real-time data reporting and quality improvement system for child welfare. The data base is

updated daily.

16

Cases with goal of Return Home

Sixteen cases consisting of 31 children with the goal of Return Home were reviewed.

The average length of time of children in foster care at the time of the review was 17.8 months;

one case with 3 children had been in care for 42 months, still with the goal of Return Home.

The average age was 9 years, 3 months, one child was age 17 at the time of custody and now is

age 18, and the youngest child was 1 year old.

Six of 16 cases had at least one documented FPM.

Eight of the 16 cases were sibling groups; in 5 of the 8 sibling groups, the children were placed in

different resource family homes.

There were 11 cases with no indication of substantial progress being made by the birth parents or prior

custodian, or there was lack of documentation to explain why the agency had not requested the court to

change to another permanency goal. One case documented that the children were now placed with their

mother and the agency was on track in transferring custody. Three cases where the children had been in

care for less than 6 months, determination could not be made as to whether progress was being made. One

case reviewed was a prevention case and the children did not enter care.

The following are examples of cases which demonstrate these findings:

In one case the children’s goal is that of Return Home, although the agency did submit the goal of

Adoption and petitions for termination of parental rights after the children had been in care for 12 months.

There was a lack of documentation for the court’s decision to not proceed with the goal of Adoption. At

the time of the review the children had been in care for over 24 months with no progress towards the goal

of Return Home.

In another case the child had been in care for 19 months with the goal of Return Home, but there was a

lack of documentation that the agency assessed the appropriate needs of the family in order to achieve the

goal.

In another case the children have been in care for three and half years and the agency had just completed

the sixth Permanency Planning Hearing with the submitted goal of Return Home. There was lack of

documentation as to why the agency has not sought other permanent goals for this sibling group of three

children, since the agency had significantly documented the parents’ lack of progress.

Of the 16 cases reviewed with the goal of Return Home, there were six cases with documented family

partnership meetings (FPM). One case documented a timely family partnership meeting. Another case

had only one meeting although the child had been in foster care since 2010. One case with a FPM prior to

the sixth permanency planning hearing had minimal documentation giving no information regarding the

plan and outcome of the meeting.

17

Cases with goal of Placement with Relatives

Ten cases were reviewed where the goal of placement with a relative was either a concurrent, previous,

subsequent or a possible goal. With five of these cases the agency made attempts to contact several

relatives. In one of the five cases, a Family Partnership meeting was held in order to appropriately assess

the relatives for possible placement. The relative lived out of state and the agency immediately initiated

an Interstate Compact Placement (ICPC).

Five of the ten cases (50%) lacked diligent efforts to contact or place the children with a relative.

In one case the agency had identified a paternal grandmother for possible placement for one of the

siblings; however there is a lack of documentation as to the delay with obtaining an ICPC home study.

The child had been in care for over 28 months.

In another case, the child entered care at the age of 17 and documentation suggests that the agency did not

consider the goal of relative placement but rather moved to the goal of Independent Living as a concurrent

goal upon entry into foster care. There was lack of documentation for why relatives were not considered

as a placement option.

Another case reviewed did not include documentation as to why efforts were not made to identify

relatives by an Accurint*3 Search or engaging the birth mother.

One case in which the children’s goal was initially “Placement with Relative”, an ICPC emergency

request was initiated. The children, a set of twins, were born prematurely and needed extensive medical

care. The paternal aunt who was contacted was a registered nurse with adequate income. Not documented

in the OASIS record, but found in the hard copy of the case, was a letter from the paternal grandmother

who was moving in with her daughter (aunt) to provide child care. In addition, the aunt had also hired a

“nanny” to provide additional support. There was lack of documentation in the OASIS record of follow

up from the agency. It was reported in the service plan that the aunt was no longer interested in obtaining

custody because she had a disagreement with her brother, the children’s father.

Reported in the case of a 15 year old youth who had been in care for over 3 years was his grandmother

who expressed interest in obtaining her grandson’s custody. The agency worker reported that the

grandmother “did not have the means” and “she is not in a financial position.” However, the grandmother

was not given the option to be approved as a relative foster care placement for the child. There was no

extended help given to the grandmother until recently when it was noted in the foster care review that

transportation would be provided by the agency and she would be included in family counseling with her

grandson.

3 VDSS has contracted with LexisNexis to provide a search tool called Accurint to all local departments of social services.

Accurint was designed to find family members and other interested adults as a resource to children/youth connected with the child welfare system. It also helps find information for adult adoptees.

18

Cases with the goal of Adoption

Twelve cases were reviewed which consisted of a total of 22 children with the goal of Adoption. Of the

22 children, only 6 children had Termination of Parental Rights (TPR) completed within 17 months or

less of the original custody date, which is within the 24 month acceptable time frame for adoption.

The 22 children with the goal of adoption were in the following stages of the adoption process:

5 children with goal of adoption - petition for TPR has not been filed with the court

11* children with termination of parental rights, not placed in an adoptive home

5 children placed in non-finalized adoption placement

1 child awaiting results of appeal of termination of parental rights

*40 months average time in foster care without an adoption placement, which greatly exceeds the

24 month standard

In reviewing these 12 cases it is important to note barriers that were common to achieving adoption. One

such barrier was timely Circuit Court and Court of Appeals decisions on TPR cases. Of 12 cases

reviewed three cases were held in TPR appeals for 15 months to 17 months. One case had a pending

Circuit Court Appeal of 17 months with no resolution.

A second barrier was the completion of timely adoptive home studies. Of the 12 cases reviewed it was

documented in two cases that the adoptive placement agreement would go forward upon completion of

the adoptive home studies. It was noted the families were on a waiting list for this to be completed.

These families were existing resource families leading to the question of the need of an adoptive home

study.

Of the 12 cases reviewed, three cases had placement disruptions and two cases had a goal change. The

three cases that experienced placement disruptions had no documentation of a family partnership meeting.

One case with a goal change did not have a documented family partnership meeting.

Three of the 22 children have been in foster care for several years without an adoptive placement.

One child placed in foster care at age 8, has experienced 37 foster care placements since 2005, of

which 15 were in residential facilities, group home settings or hospitalizations. Although not noted

in the child’s OASIS case, the hard copy case record contained documentation that this child has

several older siblings who had not been contacted for possible family connections or support, even

if not for placement options.

Another child also placed in a group home setting has been in foster care for 5 years and 8 months.

The agency was diligent in initially placing this child and his siblings with relatives but the

placement was unsuccessful. His siblings are now in adoptive placements. The child has severe

behavior problems and is in treatment and the social worker along with the group home staff are

recruiting for an adoptive placement.

19

A child with the goal of adoption has been in foster care for nine years. He has been in his current

foster to adopt placement since October 2011. The service plan states that he will be placed on an

adoptive basis with this family after a period of six months. It was unclear if this family has the

support and services needed to eventually adopt the child.

Cases with goal of Permanent Foster Care

Twelve cases consisting of 13 children with the goal of Permanent Foster care were reviewed.

Children with this goal had an average length of time in foster care of 5 years, 4 months.

The children had an average number of six placements, with the highest number of 16 placements

for one child in care for nine years.

The average age was 15 years, 8 months.

Two of the 13 children had completed termination of parental rights, while the remaining 11

children had parents whose legal rights had not been terminated and who the children had not

lived with or had contact with for several years.

Eight children were placed in residential facilities or group home settings, and 5 children were

placed in treatment foster homes. One child, placed in a residential facility, was last placed with a

family for 5 days in September 2008.

All 8 children placed in either a residential facility or group home did not have an identified permanent

foster family with whom they had a clearly established and documented significant relationship, as

required by Virginia law.4 Residential programs and group homes are not personal residences.

This practice must be stopped immediately.

Also according to VA Code 63.2-908, the LDSS shall petition the court to approve a Permanent Foster

Care placement for a child. The roles and responsibilities of the LDSS, foster parents, birth parents or

previous caretakers and, if appropriate, the child, are contained in a mutually developed and signed

agreement. Five children were placed in treatment foster homes. One child had an approved

Permanent Foster Care Agreement, another child had an approved agreement signed and approved by the

court 18 months after the court had approved the goal, which should have been done 18 months earlier at

the time of the court hearing and signing of the agreement, and 3 children who had approved goals of

Permanent Foster Care did not have an approved Permanent Foster Care agreement.

Three cases with the goal of Permanent Foster Care and with a Permanent Foster Care agreement

approved by the court were moved to one or more placements without the original Permanent Foster Care

agreement dissolved by the court as required by Virginia law (63.2-908). Only two of the 12 cases had

one documented Family Partnership Meeting. Some cases included a “notice of placement change” letter

sent to the birth family. No other cases had documented FPMs for a placement change, a goal change or

to prevent disruption and to preserve a placement.

4 According to the VA Code 63.2-908, a child with the goal of Permanent Foster Care is to be placed in the residence of a

person(s) who is determined to be appropriate in meeting the child’s needs on a long-term basis.

20

Service Plans, specifically Part B, were reviewed to determine the reasons given as to why the alternative

goal of Permanent Foster Care was chosen and why the other permanency goals of return home,

placement with relatives and adoption were ruled out.

The following are examples of inappropriate, written statements submitted to the JDR courts by the local

agency:

“Given the child’s ongoing behavioral and mental health issues, it is the agency’s

recommendation that the child’s goal be changed to permanent foster care”.

“Adoption is not an option because of the child’s age and emotional/behavioral needs”.

“Due to elimination of Independent Living as a foster care goal, Permanent Foster Care is the most

appropriate goal at the time for (Child), given his age and family situation”.

Other reasons included that the child was bonded to the birth parent, the parents could not be

located, and the child did not want to be adopted.

There was no documented evidence that the foster parents had been asked if they wish to adopt the

child.

Other findings indicated that there was insufficient to no documentation in the OASIS cases or hard

copies to support that thorough relative searches were completed or searches were continued for relatives

and significant individuals or as permanent families throughout the child’s involvement with the child

welfare system. When a search was conducted either the paternal side or maternal side were researched at

least to grandparents, but not beyond.

Cases with goal of Independent Living

Five cases with the goal of Independent Living were reviewed. Since this alternative goal has been

eliminated, the youth’s permanency goal was approved by the court prior to July 1, 2011. The similar

findings of these cases were that the youth had several goals and placement changes, and even if the

previous goal was a permanent goal, at age 16 the goal was immediately changed to Independent Living.

None of the cases had documented family partnership meetings and there was lack of documentation of

continued relative searches while the youth remained in long term care. Two children were placed in

congregate care (residential, group home) and 3 children were currently placed in treatment foster care

homes, but all had at least one residential placement. Another noted similarity is that the agency has a

tendency to use larger therapeutic homes supervised by one set of “house parents” and refer to these

group homes as either family foster homes or therapeutic foster homes.

In one case the youth wanted to be adopted by the same family who had adopted his sister and the family

was also requesting to adopt the youth. There was no FPM to determine if this was possible or what

services the family would need for support. The youth was placed with the family as a treatment foster

care placement with the goal of IL. Although the family had demonstrated their commitment to the youth

over several years there was no documentation of a discussion with the foster parents to adopt the youth.

21

In another case, a sibling group of two was separated in different placements. The older sibling expressed

her wishes to be placed with her sister and have contact with her brother, but the record indicates that

youth’s wishes were not recognized. Nor did the agency discuss with the other child’s foster parents the

possibility of also caring for the older youth or for the other siblings to have more involvement with their

older sister. The agency had team meetings but the child, family members or foster parents were not

included.

Cases with goal of Another Planned Permanency Living Arrangement

The selection of “another planned permanent living arrangement” is appropriate only if the child has a

severe chronic emotional, physical, or neurological disabling condition for which the child requires long-

term residential treatment of six (6) months or longer (§ 16.1-282.1 A). Selection of this goal requires that

all permanency and other alternative goals have been ruled out as not being in the best interest of the

child. Opportunities to change the goal and facilitate reunification, adoption, or placement with and

custody by a relative shall continue to be pursued.

Five cases were reviewed with the goal of Another Planned Living Arrangement. With the exception of

one child now placed in a foster home, 4 children were placed in a residential placement. Two of the

children are placed out of state, and one child is 3 travel hours away from his parents. The common

factors found in these cases were lack of FPMs and lack of documentation to indicate that efforts were

being made to achieve permanency in seeking lifelong connections for the child. As also found with the

Independent Living cases, the OASIS record did not describe or give details of the child’s mental health

diagnosis, and it could only be ascertained from the hard copy. The children’s ages ranged for 6 to 17

years with at least two residential placements.

One child, who has been in care since age 6 and is now age 12, also has a concurrent goal of adoption.

This child has since been placed in a foster home and the agency worker is preparing to place this child

for adoption.

Another child, age 7, placed in residential care with no plans to return home due to safety issues for the

younger siblings according to the parents, is being considered for placement with an aunt via completion

of the home study.

In one case, the youth was placed in care at age 13 and is now age 15. He has experienced 8 placements,

5 of those placements in residential placements. He is currently placed out of state. There is no

documentation that shows efforts being made to find a permanent placement or to seek lifetime family

connections for this youth.

Another youth who has been in care since age 8 and is now age 17 has lived in 13 different placements.

She is currently placed in an out of state residential treatment center. She has had two goals: Permanent

Foster Care and Another Planned Permanency Living Arrangement. The youth was last placed with a

foster family at age 10. She has been in her current placement for 2 and half years. This youth will soon

22

be age 18 and will graduate from high school. She wants to live with her family who she has only had

limited phone contact. The child has lived in institutional care for the last 7 years. The agency’s plan is

for the youth to be transitioned to a group home where she can also receive Independent Living services,

but the youth wants emancipation.

Managing by Data:

Since 2009, the VDSS has had a contract with the Children’s Research Center and has acquired

SafeMeasures, a comprehensive reporting and quality improvement data system that allows for “drill

down” data analysis and report publishing. All 120 Local Departments of Social Services are able to use

SafeMeasures to view current performance on specific measures and the agency’s performance over time.

The VBDHS has had this tool since 2009 to assist them in taking corrective action to improve both data

and service delivery.

Statewide improved results have been observed around the majority of Transformation outcomes:

Reducing the number of children in group care placements

Increasing exits to permanency

Increasing the number of children in family based care

The January 2012 SafeMeasures report shows the VBDHS had a total of 248 children in agency custody.

The VBDHS is one of seven Level 3 (largest size) agencies in the Eastern region and one of 26 Level 3

agencies in Virginia. In January 2012, VBDHS had the highest number of children (248) in agency

custody compared to the other 22 local agencies in the Eastern region. It was second in the state for the

highest number of children in foster care, exceeded only by Fairfax County, the largest local agency in

Virginia, having a total number of 338 children in foster care.

The data below shows the total number of children in care as of January 31, 2012 is 248, with 57 (23%) of

the children in congregate care.

Placement Categories for Children in Care – Virginia Beach Department of Human Services as of 1/31/12 (run date 2/7/12) (Source: SafeMeasures)

Type of Placement No. of children %

Family Home - Non Relative 160 64.5%

Congregate Care - residential/group 57 23.0%

Placed in non-finalized adoptive home 6 2.4%

Foster Home - Relative 2 0.8%

Independent Living 10 4.0%

Trial Home Visit 11 4.4%

Other 2 0.8%

23

(Source: SafeMeasures)

VBDHS had the highest number of children in congregate care among all 23 agencies in the Eastern

Region and the largest number of children in congregate care among all 120 agencies in the state.

The agency also had the lowest percentage of children placed in non-finalized adoptive homes among the

Level 3 Eastern region agencies, but a higher percentage of children placed in non-finalized adoptive

placements than five agencies of the 26 statewide Level 3 agencies.

VBDHS Child and Family Service Review (CFSR) Critical Outcome Reports

Time period: August 2011 through December 2011

The Critical Outcomes Scorecard for all 120 local agencies statewide is published in a VDSS data base

known as SafeMeasures. The scorecard uses federal criteria and measures the local agencies based on the

following criteria:

Number and percentage of children discharged to permanency

Number of children placed in congregate care, family based care and kinship care

Percentage of Foster Care worker monthly visits with children in care

Amount of time the children have been in care

Number of children reunifications within 12 months

Number of children who re-enter foster case within 12 months of discharge

Number of children adopted within 24 months of original custody date

Placement stability – two or less placements within first 12 months of custody

No abuse within the last year while in Foster Care

No reoccurrence of founded abuse or neglect (maltreatment) within the last six months

160

57

6 2

10 11

2

Type of Placement for Children in Care VBDHS Family Home - Non Relative

Congregate Care - residential/group Placed in non-finalized adoptive home Foster Home - Relative

Independent Living

Trial Home Visit

Other

24

Comparison of the VBDHS CFSR Critical Outcome Scores to the 23 local agencies in the Eastern Region

The chart below indicates the composite scores of the VBDHS compared to the composite scores of the

other 22 local agencies in the Eastern region. As shown, from August 2011 to December 2011, the

VBDHS consistently ranked last among the 23 local agencies in the Eastern region.

(Source: SafeMeasures run date 3/5/12)

Comparison of the VBDHS CFSR Critical Outcome Scores to all 120 Local Agencies Statewide

During the five month period August 2011 to December 2011, the VBDHS ranked at or near the bottom

in composite scoring compared to all of the 120 local agencies statewide. The following ranking

information of the VBDHS compared to all 120 local agencies statewide is provided:

August 2011 Tied with another agency for next-to-last statewide ranking in 118th

place

September 2011 Ranked 119th

out of 120

October 2011 Ranked 120th

- lowest in the state

November 2011 Ranked 118th

out of 120

December 2011 Ranked 117th

out of 120 (Source: SafeMeasures run date 5/24/12)

78.6

85.7

78.6 78.6

64.3

28.6 28.6

21.4 21.4

28.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Aug. 2011 Sept. 2011 Oct. 2011 Nov. 2011 Dec. 2011

P

e

r

c

e

n

t

CFSR Critical Outcomes Scorecard for 23 Local Agencies in the Eastern Region

All Other 22 Eastern Region Agencies, lowest to highest scores VBDHS Score

35.7

42.9

50.0 50.0 50.0

25

The table below is based on the quarterly reports provided by SafeMeasures beginning with the 4th

quarter

of 2008, which is the baseline year, through the last quarter of 2011. Data extracted is from the seven

Level 3 Eastern Region agencies. The table shows that from the baseline year, 4th

quarter of 2008, when

SafeMeasures was in full operation and accessible to all state agencies, that five of the seven Eastern

Region agencies decreased the number of foster children significantly. Only Virginia Beach and

Chesapeake agencies show an increase in the number of children in foster care from 2008 through

December 2011.

Eastern Region Quarterly Reports: Level 3 Agencies 4th

Qtr 2008 thru 4th

Qtr 2011 (Oct. 1st thru Dec. 31

st)

Year Total # of Children in

Care

# of Children in Congregate Care

Congregate Care %

Virginia Beach 2008 233 45 19%

2009 253 44 17%

2010 254 51 20%

2011 245 58 24%

Norfolk 2008 302 49 16%

2009 265 36 14%

2010 258 27 10%

2011 240 22 9%

Chesapeake 2008 89 10 11%

2009 79 9 11%

2010 79 6 8%

2011 99 2 2%

Portsmouth 2008 165 28 17%

2009 146 19 13%

2010 159 5 3%

2011 125 2 2%

Hampton 2008 104 1 1%

2009 72 2 3%

2010 44 3 7%

2011 41 0 0%

Suffolk 2008 54 7 13%

2009 56 5 9%

2010 49 7 14%

2011 37 8 22%

Newport News 2008 230 17 7%

2009 169 6 4%

2010 167 6 4%

2011 131 2 2%

(Source: SafeMeasures run date 3/5/12 )

26

(Source: SafeMeasures)

The greater significant changes were noted in the number of children placed in residential and group

home settings. Five of the seven agencies (Chesapeake, Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and

Norfolk) showed a decrease in the number of children placed in congregate care settings. VBDHS figures

indicate that from 2008 through the 4th

quarter of 2011, three out of four recorded years show that the

number of children placed in congregate care increased significantly.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2008 2009 2010 2011

Total number of children in care Level 3 Eastern Region agencies

2008 to 2011

Virginia Beach

Norfolk

Chesapeake

Portsmouth

Hampton

Suffolk

Newport News

45

58

49

22

10

28

1 0

7 8

17

2 0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of children in congregate care 2008 to 2011

Virginia Beach

Norfolk

Chesapeake

Portsmouth

Hampton

Suffolk

Newport News

27

The data provided below shows that the largest Level 3 agencies in each of the other four regions in the

state have experienced significant improvements in not just reducing the number of children in care but

also the percentage of children in congregate care settings.

Other Regions Quarterly Reports: Level 3 Agencies 4th

Qtr 2008 thru 4th

Qtr 2011 (Oct. 1st thru Dec. 31

st)

(Source: SafeMeasures 3/5/12)

(Source: SafeMeasures)

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2008 2009 2010 2011

Total number of children in care Largest Level 3 agencies in other regions

2008-2011

Richmond

Fairfax/Falls Church

Roanoke

Wise

Virginia Beach

Year

Total # of Children in Care

# of Children in

Congregate Care

Congregate Care %

Richmond 2008 423 118 27%

2009 335 75 22%

2010 301 70 23%

2011 232 46 19%

Fairfax/Falls Church 2008 365 82 23%

2009 343 65 19%

2010 332 60 18%

2011 323 47 14%

Roanoke 2008 368 35 10%

2009 294 31 11%

2010 256 23 9%

2011 228 27 12%

Wise County 2008 160 9 6%

2009 167 8 5%

2010 143 3 2%

2011 155 5 3%

28

(Source: SafeMeasures)

Family Partnership Meetings engage family and other significant members involved in the child’s life,

recognizing that family members should be heard, valued, and considered in the decision-making

regarding safety, permanency and well-being. As the chart below shows, VBDHS has the lowest

percentage (18%) of FPMs compared to the total number of children in care when compared to the other

six Level 3 agencies in the Eastern Region.

(Source: Division of Family Services)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2008 2009 2010 2011

Number of children in congregate care Largest Level 3 agencies in other regions

2008-2011

Richmond

Fairfax/Falls Church

Roanoke

Wise

Virginia Beach

Chesapeake Hampton Newport

News Norfolk Portsmouth Suffolk

Virginia Beach

# of FPMs 46 71 129 110 40 10 44

# of children in care 99 41 131 240 125 37 245

0

50

100

150

200

250

300 Family Partnership Meetings compared to the Number of Children in Care in 2011

46%

173%

98%

27%

18%

46%

32%

29

Agency strengths found from case readings and staff interviews:

Permanency Workers are committed to the belief that all children and youth deserve a safe environment

and that a child’s safety comes first. This was demonstrated by agency workers taking immediate action

responding to children who reportedly receive alleged abuse or neglect by caregivers. When the needs of

children in foster care are identified, appropriate services referrals are immediately initiated.

When the children’s goal was adoption, the agency made efforts to place siblings together. Of the 12

adoption cases reviewed, six of 12 cases contained sibling groups. Of the six sibling group cases, four

sibling groups were placed in the same resource home.

Social Workers take pictures of children on a regular basis regardless of age or goal. The pictures are

placed in the hard case record or in the child’s life book.

Permanency Workers are committed to compliance as demonstrated in making timely face to face visits

with children, timeliness for submitting court documents, timeliness of court hearings, and ensuring

children have regular and routine physical and dental check-ups.

When a placement change occurs, a letter of notification is sent to the parents.

PERM Finding-01:

VBDHS has not fully embraced nor do they practice the beliefs of the Virginia Children’s Services

Practice Model. They ensure safety for the child in a collaborative effort with agency staff and the

community but they do not fully and deliberately engage the child’s family or practice the other tenets of

the Practice Model.

Recommendation:

The agency needs strong leadership which understands and embraces the importance of Family

Engagement which is the primary door through which we help families make positive changes.

Management needs to require accountability and incorporation of Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs) as

an expected and regular practice of engagement for every child and family. Management needs to provide

adequate staff and support assistance to implement a successful program to ensure positive outcomes for

children.

PERM Finding-02:

Cases reviewed and social workers interviewed revealed that most permanency workers do not understand

or are aware of the principles of the Practice Model. Workers stated that CPS workers conduct FPM.

Several Permanency workers stated that they had never observed or been a participant in the meetings.

Few had requested a FPM and the majority interviewed did not know that a FPM was required for critical

case point decisions. Foster care residential workers stated that they do not have FPMs because they do

not work with the children’s families although they do notify them about treatment team meetings.

30

Recommendation:

Family Partnership Meetings should be held at every critical case point decision and specifically within

the Permanency Program when there is change of placement, change of goal, prior to reunification, prior

to a child’s 18th

birthday and at the request of the child, family, resource parent or social worker. FPMs

should be documented in OASIS not only for accountability but also for state incentive funding. Incentive

awards are provided as incentive to support the continuation and improvement of agency engagement

activities. FPMs should be conducted for all children in foster care including children who are placed in

residential treatment facilities and in group home settings. Diligent searches for relatives must be ongoing

and even if without successful results. FPMs should include significant and important relationships which

the youth or others identify.

PERM Finding-03:

Because the agency does not have an organized and solely identified Engagement Program, FPM is not an

expectation for all critical decision points and therefore the FPMs occur on an irregular basis.

Recommendation:

The FPM needs to be a strong program recognized by all staff as a required component to all case

practice. The agency needs to re-structure and re-organize the FPM process from intake to on-going

requirements of scheduling, follow-up and review of outcomes. Other state agencies similar in size or

smaller than VBDHS have several trained and qualified facilitators and support staff which provides

needed facilitators for FPMs on a daily basis. Also, the agency needs more qualified and well trained

facilitators who understand the differences among engagement, mediation, and service planning meetings.

To ensure that the agency is correctly conducting FPMs to produce the most optimal outcomes for

children and families, it is recommended that a third party reviewer, such as a trained and experienced

facilitator from another local agency, observe meetings and evaluate the VBDHS FPM process.

PERM Finding-04:

Training transcripts showed that only two of the 27 permanency workers had attended Family Partnership

Trainings (CWS 4010 and CWS 4020) which were introduced in the Spring of 2010 and is on-going. One

Permanency Supervisor attended (CWS 4030) but their transcript did not include the two prerequisite

FPM courses (CWS 4010 and 4020). Only one worker had attended all three trainings which also

included CWS 4030, yet the agency management still has not required Child Welfare supervisors and

staff to attend these trainings.

Recommendation:

All VBDHS Child Welfare staff should be required by Management to attend Family Engagement

courses 4010 (on-line) and 4020 (instructor lead) as strongly recommended by VDSS Broadcast #6142,

dated March 16, 2010. Family Engagement and Family Partnership Meetings can only be effective if both

facilitators and agency staff understand the process and their critical roles.

31

Moreover, due to size of the agency and the number of families they serve, more qualified and trained

facilitators are needed to be available for FPM on a daily basis including Emergency Removals and

critical case point decision meetings. VBDHS management should identify more staff members as

facilitators with the requirement of attending all state Family Engagement trainings including Facilitator

Training (CWS 4030). Facilitators and staff need to be flexible in scheduling FPM to adjust to the needs

and schedules of family members.

PERM Finding-05:

There was a lack of documentation describing engagement and interaction between the agency social

workers and the family at the first contact. Permanency workers receiving transferred cases from CPS do

the immediate child related intake activities and case opening requirements. The meetings with parents or

prior custodians are held to discuss the information of foster care expectations and to gather information

about relatives who may be possible placement options for the child. Although this information is vital

and important, there is no documentation that indicates a sense of engagement by the use of a social

history, family background, or conversation in getting to know the individual on a meaningful level.

Recommendation:

Based on the belief that family members are the experts about their own families, it is the agency’s

responsibility to understand children, youth, and families within the context of their own family rules,

traditions, history, and culture. Therefore, agency expectations should include the process of engaging

families with the first contact by listening attentively and gathering information about the family in a safe

and non-judgmental setting. This information should be clearly documented in the OASIS record.

PERM Finding-06:

Service plans are developed but case record documentation does not show evidence that the family is

involved. Workers expressed that with the few FPMs held, the social worker discussed the service plan,

which is not the intent or purpose of a FPM. Required services are listed but service plans do not detail as

to when, where and who will make the referrals or who will provide the services. Service Plans are

generalized which does not clearly identify and individualize the circumstances or needs and strengths of

the child and the parents or the prior custodian. OASIS court screens are incomplete and the narratives do

not include details of court hearings.

Recommendation:

Service Plans should be individualized for the uniqueness of every child and family. Service plans should

be developed through collaboration with families, to implement creative, individual solutions that build

on their strengths to meet their needs. Service plans should detail where, when and what services are

required and who will provide the services. The OASIS court screen should be completed and the case

narrative should describe who attended the court hearing and the outcomes including details of any court

orders.

32

VBDHS workers should be available to assist the family in accessing services by removing any barriers

that may prolong successful service completion. Workers should be partnering with providers by keeping

abreast of the family’s attendance and participation. Regular face to face visits and phone contacts must

be documented in the case record to indicate the worker’s continued involvement in assisting and

encouraging the family to ultimately reunite with their children in the least amount of time. The agency

should consider creating Parent Specialist positions working directly with biological parents which have

proven successful in other local agencies in achieving reunification in the least amount of time.

PERM Finding-07:

Relative searches were completed inconsistently. Those relatives who were contacted were usually

grandparents but other adult family members were rarely contacted. The agency only contacted family

members suggested by the parents. There was insufficient to no documentation in the OASIS cases or

hard copy case records to support that thorough relative searches were completed or searches were

continued for relatives and significant individuals to serve as permanent families throughout the child’s

involvement with the child welfare system. Copies of letters notifying relatives within 30 calendar days

after the child’s removal from their parents’ or prior custodians’ home were not found in hard copy files.

Recommendation:

In accordance with (Social Security Act, Title IV, § 471 (a) (29) [42 USC 671]), the VBDHS shall

document diligent efforts to notify in writing all grandparents and other adult relatives, both maternal and

paternal, when the child is being removed or has been removed. Parents and relatives should be actively

engaged in decision making for the child through a Family Partnership Meeting prior to removing the

child whenever possible. This written notice shall occur within 30 calendar days after removing a child

from the custody of the parent(s) (Social Security Act, Title IV, § 471 (a) (29) [42 USC 671]).

LDSS may contact relatives without the family’s consent, written release, or court order when the LDSS

determines that disclosure of information is in the child’s best interests and the person has a legitimate

interest. The LDSS has authority to contact parents, grandparents, or any other individuals that the LDSS

considers a potential caretaker for the child who is involved with child protective services, if the child has

to be removed from the parent or custodian (§ 63.2-105; 22 VAC 40-705-160 B; 22 VAC 40-705-10).

PERM Finding-08:

After the termination of their parental rights ordered by the Virginia Beach Juvenile and Domestic

Relations Court (JDRC), parents often file an appeal with the Circuit Court. The resolution of appeals

often takes several months to years therefore delaying permanency for the child.

33

Recommendation:

As the agency incorporates and integrates the concepts of engagement and the Practice Model, the

possibility of adversarial relationships between the agency and parents should decrease, thus resulting

with parents agreeing to sign Permanent Entrustments and developing Post Adoption Contact and

Communication Agreements with adoptive parents. Also, the agency and their legal teams should

routinely communicate concerning issues which may be resolved from the first contact, prior to the first

foster care hearing, and throughout the family’s involvement with the judicial process.

PERM Finding-09

Adoption home studies for already approved resource parents were delayed and placed on a waiting list,

thus delaying permanency for children.

Recommendation:

Dual approved resource families have already been approved as both foster and adoptive families. Other

than updating to ensure that the home study is current, when the child is free for adoption and has lived

with the family for six consecutive months, the finalization of adoption should be initiated immediately.

PERM Finding-10:

There were no child specific recruitment campaigns for special needs children with severe disabilities and

multiple placements.

Recommendation:

The agency did register the child with the Adoption Resource Exchange of VA, and made some efforts to

place children, but more diligent efforts are needed. VBDHS does not contract with Child Placing

Agencies which are awarded grants by the VDSS to create and develop child specific recruitment

activities at no cost to local agencies. Therefore, it is recommended that the agency partner with one or

more of the contracted agencies to make diligent efforts for the children who need this service.

PERM Finding-11:

A child’s goal was changed from adoption to permanent foster care and it was stated in the service plan

that the child did not want to be adopted.

Recommendation:

The agency needs to educate children and families of the benefits of permanency which adoption

provides. Both children and parents often believe, incorrectly, that it means a complete break from all

family members. The agency needs to solicit the services of therapists and counselors who can provide

the level of understanding for children and their families. The agency also can partner with Project Life

34

staff to provide direct training to the youth regarding adoption whose parents’ parental rights have been

terminated.

PERM Finding-12:

In several of the reviewed cases, Permanent Foster Care was the selected foster care goal after several

permanency planning hearings and when parents or prior custodians did not make significant progress to

be reunited with their children. Compelling reasons given did not meet the criteria for not petitioning the

court for termination of parental rights.

Recommendation:

The agency needs to follow the federal law, PL 105-89 (Adoptions and Safe Families Act of 1997) which

requires that the LDSS petition for TPR by the end of the 15th month of placement for children

adjudicated abused and neglected, who have been in care 15 of the last 22 months and by the end of the

15th month of placement for all other children who have been in care 15 out of the last 22 months unless

an exception cited above exists. Although in some cases exceptions may exist, the goal of permanency

achieved in the least amount of time should be the ultimate standard to include legitimate, documented

efforts and any reasons why permanency is being delayed.

PERM Finding-13:

Permanent Foster Care goal was submitted to and approved by the VA Beach Juvenile Domestic

Relations Court when the child and the foster parent did not have a well established and significant

relationship nor did the court approve a Permanent Foster Care Agreement signed by both the youth and

the foster parent. Youth placed in residential and group home settings had approved Permanent Foster

Care Goals.

Recommendation:

According to VA Code 63.2-908, a child with the goal of Permanent Foster Care is to be placed in the

residence of a person(s) who is determined to be appropriate in meeting the child's needs on a long-term

basis. Residential programs and group homes are not personal residences. VBDHS should only

submit the Permanent Foster Care goal in accordance with VA Code 63.2-908. Prior to the selection of

Permanent Foster Care, the agency must document all diligent efforts made to rule out all permanency

goals. If parental rights have been terminated, the agency should document discussions of adoption with

the youth and the foster parent. Consider residential placements for short term, temporary placements

when the child requires crisis stabilization or intensive treatment that cannot be safely or effectively

provided in a family setting. Begin immediately developing and implementing a plan for returning the

child home safely, to a relative's home, or to a family-like setting at the earliest appropriate time

consistent with the child’s needs (§ 2.2-5208 5).

35

PERM Finding-14:

Twenty one cases were reviewed where the child was placed in residential facility or group home settings.

Fifteen of the 21 cases had alternative goals of Permanent Foster Care, Independent Living and Another

Planned Permanent Living Arrangement. Most children had been in care for long time periods with

multiple placements. There was no evidence documented that efforts were being made to continue the

search for relatives or to seek support systems for lifelong connections for the youth. There were no

Family Partnership meetings for placement or goal changes. Workers stated that they do not have time for

FPM since children are moved on an emergency basis and the children they serve do not have family

members to contact for a FPM. There were no meetings documented to prevent or preserve placements.

Youth were moved from one congregate care placement to another. Few of the reviewed cases

documented efforts to transition the youth to a family like setting.

Recommendation:

Placements in non-family settings should be temporary, focus on individual children’s needs, and prepare

them for return to family and community life. According to VA Code 63.2-908, youth in congregate care

environments with no identified foster family to whom they will return, should not have the goal of

Permanent Foster Care. Children with any of the alternative goals require diligent efforts for the

possibility of being returned home to parents or relatives or for adoption. For children with the goal of

adoption, the agency should enlist the assistance of private contracted child placing agencies to create and

develop child specific recruitment campaigns. The agency should meet routinely with the residential

treatment facility or group home staff and discuss the process of a transition to a “step-down” plan which

includes the possibility of family members, if not for placement, for taking an active role in the child’s life

with visits, phone and email contacts. Family members should be invited to attend a Family Partnership

Meeting arranged by the agency. Continued efforts to achieve permanency should be clearly documented

in the OASIS record and stated clearly in the child’s Service Plan to the Court.

PERM Finding-15:

The VBDHS has not embraced the state’s transformation initiatives and from the evidence of case

readings and supporting data the VBDHS lags behind the successful outcomes which the majority of

Virginia agencies have experienced.

Recommendation:

The VBDHS would greatly benefit by networking with other agencies within the state with similar

characteristics, with large numbers of children in care and with diverse populations who have fully

embraced Transformation and the Practice Model and have experienced positive outcomes for families

and children. This was suggested to the local agency by VDSS Regional staff several times since 2010

but each time was rejected by the division Director. It is strongly recommended that staff increase their

participation in state and local regional meetings in the spirit of improving outcomes for the department’s

children in foster care. It is also recommended that agency staff increase participation in the Eastern

Regional Family Partnership Quarterly Roundtable meetings which have been on-going since 2010. In

36

addition, the Practice Model should not only guide the work of the VBDHS staff but the entire

community of city stakeholders and service providers in a joint effort to improve outcomes for children.

Communication should be clear and often in communicating the belief that children and youth belong in

family and community settings and that resources must be allocated in a manner consistent with that

belief.

PERM Finding-16:

Two Permanency social workers and one Permanency Supervisor attended the Family Partnership

Meeting trainings. However, only one permanency worker had completed the required three courses. One

supervisor who is an agency facilitator only attended (CWS 4030) the facilitator training. During

interviews with staff, some workers stated that they would like to attend more training but are unable to

do so due to their high workload and emergencies.

Recommendations:

The Family Partnership Meeting trainings for all Child Welfare staff are required. Family Engagement

and Family Partnership Meetings can only be effective if properly implemented based on the knowledge

and skills of the family’s worker, the worker’s supervisor, and the facilitator. Families deserve trained and

skilled professionals to engage and assist them. In September 2011, the VBDHS sponsored training from

Kevin Campbell, a nationally renowned expert in finding families for youth who have been in foster care

for several years and without significant relationships. The case reviews during this review revealed that

the agency has many children of this status in their custody. Transference of learning from the Kevin

Campbell training in 2011 did not result in agency changes in their case practice. Therefore, it is

recommended that similar trainings be repeated with a mandate from management that all child welfare

staff attend and some form of a work group or committee develop procedures which will require the skills

of finding families for the children be incorporated into the local department’s required standards of

practice.

37

Individual Interviews with Permanency Workers

Five members of the VDSS Review Team conducted individual, one-on-one interviews with all members

of the VBDHS Permanency staff. The following is a summary of the results of the individual interviews:

Morale of the Agency

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, the overall average score for staff morale was 4.5.

Social workers stated they are not respected by VBDHS administration or the community.

There is no communication with management.

The Director of the Adult and Family Services division has stated there is no open door policy.

The Director of the VBDHS says he has an open door policy but rarely is available to staff due to

his many other responsibilities.

The “Administration” is not open or transparent.

Extra work is expected from social workers.

There is confusion and conflict between federal policy and state guidance (policy) and the agency

practice.

As a result of an infant child fatality in 2010, more documentation is expected to be provided to

support our practices.

Morale is low, in part, because workers do not feel that they did everything they could have done.

Supervision

The majority of the Permanency workers rated the quality of supervision as either a 9 or 10

(with 10 being the highest score).

Five workers rated their supervision from 2 to 5 (with10 being the highest score) due to “no

formal structure” and lack of foster care program knowledge by the supervisor.

Some workers commented that they were supported and received much communication from their

supervisor.

Supervisors were described as being the “buffers” within the unit regarding issues with other units

in the agency.

Most staff stated that they are able to express their opinions and concerns which are noted and

addressed.

Two workers commented that suggestions are not recognized or considered by their supervisor.

Top Work-related Concerns Expressed by Staff

Workers need more agency structure, organization and communication, lower caseloads, better

access to city cars and better IT tools (laptops could not access OASIS at the time of the review).

Morale in the unit and division needs to improve.

Staff would like more training but identified time constraints and redundant paperwork as barriers.

Staff questioned the use of ARVON part-time workers instead of having full time workers.

Staff stated that the people who make the laws do not understand what social workers do.

38

There is a lack of cooperation/coordination among courts, schools and mental health agencies.

The agency’s perspective and focus is to minimize liability instead of practicing good social work.

No one spoke to workers about how to respond to the media or to the community about the infant

child fatality in 2010 which was heavily covered by the local press in 2011 and 2012.

There is no formal process or methodology regarding how we do our work.

(State) policy and guidance requires you to do one thing but agency practice requires you to do

something different.

The VDSS Permanency Regional Consultant cannot be contacted by staff for advice or to answer

policy questions without the permission of the supervisor or the division Director.

The resource family home studies read like parenting capacities are sufficient. However, staff do

not know how some homes were approved given the knowledge and other information they have

about the resource family.

The workers do not feel that their concerns are heard by supervisors and management.

The social workers want to comply with federal and state policy/guidance but the agency does not

want to change its practices.

There is a lack of professional courtesy and respect from supervisors and management.

The response in the agency is more reactive than proactive.

The workers’ suggestions are not taken into account by supervisors and management despite the

workers’ education and experience.

The court process/practice results in children lingering in foster care.

Agency Process/Practice in Locating Relatives

Staff were asked to describe the local department process/practice used to locate family members of

children who come into care and the efforts made to continue to locate family members throughout the

life of the case. Staff responses are summarized below:

CPS workers do family searches and foster care workers continue to search.

Birth parents are asked for relative names and Accurint searches are completed.

The worker tries to contact family members by phone and from family partnership meetings.

When the residential worker receives a new case the relative search has already been done.

I have never found a family member who could handle the child.

I do not do a search because the child does not have a family.

When I have the first contact with the child, I sometimes contact other family members.

I start with the child and also use a family tree or genogram to locate family members.

If the birth parents do not give us the names of relatives we do not use Accurint to search for

family members.

The Accurint form is given to an identified social worker who does the search for family

members.

I search benefit records, retail merchants and DMV records trying to locate other family members.

I ask parents and family members about other relatives.

39

Staff responses to the use and knowledge of agency and Permanency workers’ Family Engagement

Strategies

I observe the child and the family together.

Contact is made with the family as soon as the child comes into foster care and visits are arranged.

I inform the family that the goal is to return the child to their home.

I pick up clues from the family, are they depressed, do they have a support system, etc.?

I first let them talk and tell me what they want and what they do not want.

Some children want to talk with their families, but others do not. I do not force them to talk.

I keep the family informed by calling them and reminding them of meetings and visits and offer

transportation if they need it.

A residential worker stated that she does very little work with families due to the high caseload.

With the child, I do not make promises I cannot keep and I show them an example.

I will conduct a family partnership meeting if needed.

Worker visits, listening skills, assessment of needs and encouraging the parents are used as

engagement strategies.

I am open about expectations of the parents, use of FPMs, which are very informal, and review the

service plan.

I provide visitation with the child and family.

When a case is transferred to the worker, the child has already established a relationship with the

foster family.

I have monthly visits with children but if the child is under 5 and is seen weekly, I believe the

local agency practice of stripping the child of clothing is unethical and may provide mental harm,

especially if the child is a victim of sexual abuse.

Social workers accommodate families by meeting them where it is convenient for the family.

Knowledge of and participation in Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs)

The staff interviewed provided the following responses:

I do not participate in and have not attended a FPM.

The last Family Partnership Meeting I attended was in the fall of last year.

I have not attended a FPM for placement of child or for a goal change.

I do not conduct a FPM when a child moves because they are all emergency moves.

I arranged a FPM but the parents were not invited to attend since the child was in a group home.

I have conducted a FPM for a goal change but not for a placement change but the parents were

notified.

I have not conducted a FPM because the child does not have family and is in a group home.

I have meetings when the family is available, but it is not a structured FPM.

Foster care has a FPM prior to the 75 day dispositional hearing or prior to a child returning home.

If a request is made for a FPM, it is usually held within the week.

40

FPMs are done prior to child coming into foster care and when aging out. I think they are done

within 30 days of a child entering foster care. Sometimes parents bring their attorneys to the

meeting.

The few permanency workers who had attended and participated in FPMs stated that the meetings

were positive and they helped the family to understand the goals and gave them direction.

Staff responses to the initiation of team relationships with birth parents and resource parents

Some foster parents do not feel comfortable because of potential safety issues with birth parents.

Social workers will not encourage the relationship if foster parents are not comfortable with it.

Some social workers try to create these relationships on a case-by-case basis.

We really do not integrate birth parents and foster parents. Social workers are the go-between.

I do not allow birth and foster parents to be in the same room at the same time because of potential

hostility and jealousy from the birth parents.

I will initiate a relationship only if I get a “good feeling” about the birth parent(s).

The agency practice is to” ingrain” in foster parents that they do not have to meet or communicate

with the birth parents and the foster parents believe they are not supposed to be around the birth

parents. Many staff believe it is a good thing if the birth and foster parents communicate with

each other.

From my experience in working with a private agency, foster parents are eager to meet and help

the birth parents.

Trying to build a relationship between birth and foster parents does not work with the families.

Most children I work with have Termination of Parental Rights or the parent is incarcerated.

I will try to build a relationship between birth and foster parent(s) only if there are no potential or

actual safety issues and as long as it is positive and effective.

I believe that foster parents do not want to meet or have any contact with the birth parents.

I believe when foster parents and birth parents meet it is very helpful. My foster parents often help

with visits for the child and birth parents and making life books with the children.

The agency practice is the foster parents can make the choice to meet or not meet the birth parents.

From my experience, foster and birth parents do not meet. This is an agency-wide practice.

However, I do not believe this is a good practice.

I believe that most foster parents do not want a relationship with birth parents because they may

want to adopt the child or children.

41

Child Protective Services Program

Gail Heath-Davidson, Child Protective Services Program Consultant, CPS Team Leader

The Virginia Beach CPS program includes five investigative units and three ongoing service units with a

total of thirty (30) full time positions and nineteen (19) in ongoing. Four of these positions are considered

temporary as they are hired through the Arvon temp agency. One investigative unit covers the night call

rotation; one unit is assigned to Intake and the Intake staff is responsible for answering calls to the CPS

hotline during the day. Eight supervisors manage this program under the direction of the Director of Adult

and Family Services. At the time of the review two staff vacancies exist in the investigative units and the

ongoing units were fully staffed.

The CPS Quality Management Review (QMR) consisted of VDSS CPS program consultants reviewing a

total of 100 cases: 68 ongoing records (20% of those opened in Fiscal Year 2011) and 32 referrals from

June and November 2011 (20% of those accepted in those months). The referrals reflect casework before

and after statewide implementation of Structured Decision Making (SDM) in August 2011. SDM is

designed to assist the CPS staff in assessing safety and risk. All 32 hard copy files for the referrals were

examined during the on-site week of the review. The CPS QMR included information from unit

interviews with CPS staff, individual supervisor interviews, the Self Assessment completed by

supervisory staff and the results of a confidential Employee Survey sent electronically to all child welfare

staff.

Strengths:

The CPS program is staffed by dedicated, competent staff and the internal support evident in the units.

The staffing log, an initial assessment in ongoing cases and the practice of merging and associating

referrals are practices worthy of mention. The Fathers in Training program supports the Virginia Practice

Model and Virginia’s Transformation of child welfare.

Findings and recommendations will be delineated by four areas: Intake, Family Assessments (FA) and

Investigations (INV), Night Call and Ongoing.

General Observations/Comments:

Staff consistently spoke of the hostile, punitive work environment and the fear of retaliation by the

division Director and upper management for speaking up. They stated decisions are made without their

input very much like the agency makes decisions regarding families without their involvement. Staff also

stated they are directed by supervisors to, in their words, “harass clients” with demands put on staff to

make home visits once the investigation/family assessment is complete because of the “what if” attitude

that something “could” happen. This may be a factor in the 70+% overall turnover rate in the CPS

program in the last twenty four (24) months as reported in staff interviews and the Self-Assessment

completed by supervisors. While Virginia Beach has been a CORE agency since 2007, few staff knew of

the Practice Model and the Transformation initiatives. This is reflected in the lack of family engagement

practices, the absence of the number and quality of family partnership meetings and minimal efforts to

identify family/supports/protective factors when a child is at risk of coming out of the home.

42

Staff overwhelmingly expressed concern around a lack of communication between units, programs and

administration.

Recommendations adopted from an earlier Quality Management Review reflect improvements in

response time. VB has a 24 hour response time requirement; state policy recommends response time

frames of 24 hours, 48 hours or 5 business days. Of the referrals reviewed, not all met the agency

response timeline but all were within times recommended in state policy.

Reviewers noted the Family Assessments are incorrectly incident focused rather than fully engaging in

an assessment of their strengths and needs. Regardless of what the family says, most safety assessments

were incorrectly stated as “conditionally safe”. Few FAs had documentation in the Interview and

Interaction (I and I) screens; most contacts were noted on the assessment screen even for those with 20-

30 contacts. Reviewers found confusion in assessing for safety and risk. Errors were noted in completing

the mandated Structured Decision Making risk tool.

No Family Partnership meetings (FPMs) were documented in the FA and INV referrals. At least two

referrals involved children being taken into protective custody; this is one of the decision points when a

FPM is to be held. This is consistent with the agency not embracing and implementing Transformation

and the Practice Model. Currently there are only seven facilitators for FPMs. In comparison, Chesapeake

DHS implemented the practice of all Social Worker IIs and IIIs being trained in facilitation. Staff

indicated the policy of holding FPMs only began around August or September of 2011. In 2007 Virginia

Beach was one of the CORE agencies in the state that received additional support and training through the

Casey Foundation. Richmond City DSS, another agency of similar size, also was a CORE agency and

now conducts an average of 12-15 FPMs per month.

Family Assessments and Investigations:

VBDHS CPS responded to 1,496 reports in FY 2011. In the first quarter of FY 2012 this total was 366, or

an average of 124 per month/6 per business day. This does not include a screen out rate of 57% which

mirrors the regional rate. Per worker this equals approximately 8 new referrals per month. (While night

call workers do respond to new referrals, the referrals typically get reassigned to day staff workers the

next day.) This is well below the Child Welfare League recommended standard of 12-14 new referrals per

month, per worker. During the onsite interviews staff indicated they get at least one new report each day

they are on call. The Administration instituted a monthly standard of no more than 7 overdue referrals for

each worker with reprimands for non-compliance. Currently, nineteen (19) staff exceed this limit

which is a violation of Virginia Code, section 63.2-1505 and 1506. Staff stated this is too strict;

especially when no similar standard exists for supervisors who routinely send referrals back to staff for

additional work/documentation which slows the referral closing process. A suggestion was made that

once the referrals are submitted to the supervisor for closure, they remain in the supervisor’s box until

closed.

43

Recommendation:

The number of overdue referrals is too high and must be reduced and minimized going forward. Some

supervisors need to complete a thorough review of the referrals within 5 days of submission for closure

and prior to returning the referrals to staff. Making multiple reviews and returning the referrals several

times to staff during the process is a major contributing factor to the high number of overdue referrals.

CPS Night Call:

Five of the seven staff in this unit provide after hours coverage for the program. Two staff were recently

promoted to SWIII with duties specifically to develop an in house training program for CPS. To date one

SWIII still handles investigations/FA; the other one is on extended leave. The reviewers were given a

copy of the in house training for CPS. During staff interviews staff indicated this training program has not

been offered for some time. While there is a supervisor for the night call unit, the other four supervisors

rotate after-hour’s coverage, each handling a week. Their work shift for this coverage week begins at 3:00

pm. They are not required to be in the office during the day. Staff mentioned this negatively impacts the

work flow and the supervisor is not immediately available in the office.

Recommendation:

Management should assess the current Night Call program to include other options, such as rotation by all

CW staff and placing more experienced staff to the day shift to assist with the volume and caseloads on

this shift.

Ongoing Services:

Three units for a total of nineteen (19) staff provide ongoing CPS services. Two units expressed being

supported by their supervisor. Staff in the third unit expressed extreme stress and the supervisor’s

management style affecting morale, the work environment and overall job performance. SafeMeasures

data shows caseloads ranging from seven (7) to fourteen (14). A SafeMeasures report, (run date -March

4th

) for the February 2012 period, shows mandated monthly contacts were made in 78% of the cases. The

sample reviewed from Fiscal Year 2011 was opened prior to implementing SDM. Practice issues include:

cases opened not based on risk,

the introductory letter stating family has to accept services lacks an engaging tone,

service plan development without the family’s input,

“cookie cutter” service plans which lack behaviorally specific measurable tasks/goals,

no FPMs held on high risk cases within 30 days of transfer for ongoing services, and

vague risk re-assessments and service plan reviews.

When identified, a good documentation of initial family assessment included:

the dispositional assessment from the Investigation/Family Assessment, quarterly reviews, and the

closing assessment,

taking pictures of children at each visit, and

offering a wide array of services including Fathers in Training and classes on child safety offered

at the agency.

44

CPS Finding-01:

Intake is currently staffed by four social workers. This is a recent change in response to complaints of

“dropped “calls and long waiting periods for callers. Staff expressed concerns that no coverage schedule

for Intake means staff cannot take lunch or breaks unless they can secure their own coverage. A problem

with the current system is no way of tracking how many calls are waiting to be answered. Staff shared the

DSS phone system is the same as the police use yet the feature of a screen showing calls waiting are not

available to DSS.

Recommendation:

1. Complete an analysis of the intake process to include validation of referrals.

2. Consider the feasibility of adding phone software to alert Intake staff that calls are waiting.

3. Design a process for coverage when staff takes a break or is at lunch.

CPS Finding-02:

Staff are documenting Family Assessments (FAs) with many contacts on the Assessment Screen.

Recommendation:

Family Assessments (FAs) with many contacts need to be documented on the Interview and Interaction

(I and I) screen. For those FAs where what was reported is clearly wrong and only one or two contacts

are made, using the Assessment Screen is sufficient and allowable for this information.

CPS Finding-03:

FPMs are not held when children are placed in protective custody. FPMs are not held in those high risk

cases within 30 days of the case being opened to services. This reflects an overall lack of engagement

with families.

Staff reported a lack of time to do their work impacts decisions to not hold a FPM. Additionally, only two

CPS staff have completed any Family Engagement training.

Recommendation:

1. Assess the implementation of the Practice Model to include FPM and SDM.

2. Ensure that all CPS staff and supervisors complete the recommended Family Engagement/FPM

training.

3. Assess the need for additional trained facilitators to conduct FPMs in CPS.

45

CPS Finding-04:

Based on the data in OASIS and review of the case records, reports of abuse/neglect in foster homes are

not reported to CPS. Allegations in at least five different foster care situations were never taken as valid

reports and investigated. The agency practice may be to move the alleged victim child or close the foster

home.

Recommendation:

All allegations of abuse and neglect in resource family homes are mandated to be reported and

investigated and must be reported to CPS. The agency needs to provide training to foster care staff in

mandated reporting requirements. Ensure reports are followed up on when validated.

CPS Finding-05:

During staff interviews, CPS staff indicated the in-house training program for new CPS workers has not

been offered for some time. Management has responded that experienced workers mentor, shadow and

train new hires while the in-house training program is being reestablished.

Recommendation:

Task the newly promoted SWIIIs with updating and implementing the in house training program for new

CPS staff.

CPS Finding -06:

Service plans are not targeted to the needs of the family and lack family input in development and

reassessment of progress.

Recommendation:

1. Assess the need for additional CPS ongoing staff training.

2. Determine if the SWIIIs can develop and offer an in house training for ongoing staff.

3. The state offers two courses, CWS 1061 and 1071 which include information and activities on

assessment and service planning. CWS 5011 contains exercises on these topics as well.

Other Recommendations:

Adopt a leadership model that embraces the receipt of input from all levels of staff and

communicates both expectations and accomplishments. While unit meetings are held, staff

indicated program and child welfare meetings attended by all staff are rare to the point where

many could not recall ever attending such a meeting.

46

The Virginia Code, section 63.2-1503 and 22 VAC 40-705-10, states CPS investigations are to be

conducted by employees of the local department.

VBDHS must immediately replace the four Arvon temporary agency staff positions

currently assigned to CPS investigation/FA units with full time, city employees.

CPS Staff Concerns:

Staff rated their top concerns as lack of communication between units, lack of resources, wanting more

accessibility to technology ( air cards and after-hours ), after-hours access to the VBDHS building, no

formal training program for ongoing CPS and the lack of availability of agency vehicles needed for home

visits, etc.

47

RESOURCE FAMILY PROGRAM

Flora Harris, Resource Family Consultant, Resource Family Team Leader

Definitions:

Resource parent - an approved provider parent who is committed both to support reunification and also

to be prepared to adopt the child if the child and family do not reunify. The provider

parent has completed the dual approval process for foster care and adoption.

Kinship Care - The full-time care, nurturing and protection of children by relatives.

CRAFFT - an acronym for Community Resource, Adoptive and Foster Family Training. This contracted

training service is available for prospective resource families in order to increase the pool of

viable family-based placements. CRAFFT also delivers in-service training for currently-

approved families and conducts assessments specific to training needs of prospective

resource families.

The Resource Family review consisted of the following:

Review of the Resource Family Training model compared to the requirements in the Provider

Regulations

Assessment of the resource families’ knowledge and participation in Family Partnership Meetings

Review of the Mutual Family Assessments (home studies) case records

Determination of whether assessments of families are appropriately documented in case record

Determination of how additional training needs of resource families are assessed

Determination of whether appropriate training is being offered to address specific needs of

children and resource families

Review the strategies being used for child-specific recruiting efforts for children in residential

placements

Determination of whether the amount and type of training provided for Family Engagement for

both staff and resource families is appropriate.

Methodology:

The Virginia Beach Department of Human Services currently has one hundred approved resource families

in OASIS as of March 1, 2012. Thirty-eight cases were selected for review.

There are eleven staff members in this unit. All eleven staff members were individually interviewed.

Sixteen of the 100 resource families were interviewed (16%); one kinship family, six therapeutic families,

eight traditional families and one private agency parent. One of the eight traditional parents had an

allegation of abuse and neglect.

Six cases were reviewed with allegations of abuse and neglect by resource families (according to the

child’s foster care records).

48

In addition to reviewing the SafeMeasures data base, OASIS software case information and hard copy

case records for these cases were reviewed.

RF Finding-01: OASIS

The review of the cases revealed documentation of casework and utilization of OASIS is lacking and not

in compliance with policy. There was insufficient or no documentation entered in OASIS. Of the 45

cases reviewed, only 11 cases had information documented in the resource contact screen in OASIS.

When contacts and visits were entered, there was limited documentation.

There was no documentation of CPS allegations in OASIS for four of the six cases with allegations of

abuse or neglect noted in the child’s foster care records. One of these cases indicated the abuser was

unknown. None of the hardcopy records contained documentation regarding the allegations. One case

had a letter indicating the case was being closed because of CPS allegations, but contained no

documentation of the allegations.

Recommendation:

All contacts with resource families or contacts that affect resource families should be entered into OASIS

within five days. Supervisors should check OASIS on a monthly basis to ensure contacts are entered. All

case files should be reviewed and updated according to the Provider Regulations.

RF Finding-02: Review of Hard Copy Records

Most of the records reviewed did not contain the required and recommended forms per Provider

Regulations. There were three cases out of compliance due to re-approvals made after the expiration

dates. For the lapse in time, these homes were out of compliance and should not be funded using Title

IV-E funds during the lapsed period.

There was limited information documented during the monitoring visits. The information entered did not

provide assessment information regarding the family and placement. In three of the cases, the number of

children residing in the house had changed since the last visit and there was no discussion documented at

the time of the visit regarding the additional children living in the house with the resource parents.

The Certificate of Approval forms indicated approval for more placements or different ages of children

than documented in the mutual family assessment and/or requested by the family. A majority of the hard

copy cases indicated a capacity of four or eight children.

In one case, one of the two primary caretakers died. This information was provided by the remaining

resource parent to the interviewer. There is no documentation in the case record regarding the death of

one of the resource parents or reassessment of the household as a single parent household following the

death of the other resource parent.

49

Recommendation:

Detailed information should be documented regarding the family including strengths, needs, change in

household composition and services provided during the monitoring visits and the new information must

be contained in the case record. The compliance worker should receive OASIS training and be required to

provide more detailed information. The certificates should only indicate the number and ages of children

as determined by the mutual family assessment. The agency is using out-of-date forms which should be

replaced immediately with current, state-approved forms.

RF Finding-03: Mutual Family Assessments (Home Studies)

The mutual family assessments contained detailed documentation regarding the potential parent, but there

was limited documentation to confirm the families’ competencies to meet the needs of the children who

potentially would be placed in their home. The agency has a team staffing to determine the approval or

denial of prospective resource families. However, staff indicated that input from other members of the

staffing team regarding the resource family under consideration is not considered in the decision of

approval or denial. The final decision is determined by the supervisor. There is no documentation added

to the mutual family assessment when families are transferred to the internal therapeutic foster care

program known as TAFY.

Recommendation:

1. The supervisor should receive training in supervision and team building.

2. A more detailed assessment of the families’ skills and abilities (competencies) should be provided

in the mutual family assessments.

3. An addendum should be added to the mutual family assessment when families are transferred to

the internal therapeutic foster care program (TAFY).

RF Finding-04: Working with Biological Families and FPMs

The agency does not make diligent efforts to engage resource families in working with biological

families.

Working with biological families is included in pre-service training. In reviewing the training

curriculum, this is expressed in an informative, general presentation. However, it was observed in

the Orientation training session attended by the reviewer, potential resource families were told that

they would not have to talk to the biological families. During the observation of the last session of

training, this was expressed again by the instructor who stated that families had a choice in

whether they wanted to work with the biological families.

Interviews with resource parents indicated that they were not encouraged to work with the

biological families; however, they stated that they were willing to work with families.

Independently, two families who were interviewed stated that they have developed a relationship

50

on their own with the biological families of their placements without the direction of the agency

staff.

Only two of the families interviewed have participated in a family partnership meeting.

None of the families interviewed have received training in family partnership meetings except for

the limited information provided in pre-service training.

The agency presented their first in-service class on working with the biological family in January,

2012.

Recommendation:

All families should receive training in working with the biological family members. Additionally, all

families should receive training in Family Partnership Meetings. Both trainings should be provided by

trainers with an outside vendor, such as CRAFFT, and not by the VBDHS staff.

RF Finding-05: Support, Respect and Value of Resource Families

All of the sixteen families interviewed indicated that families were supported, respected and valued by the

unit members. Ten families felt supported by the agency as a whole. While most families interviewed felt

supported and valued by VBDHS staff, two families indicated that they did not feel respected and valued

by the supervisor. If complaints were made, the two families interviewed stated their complaint affected

future placement decisions by the supervisor. One resource parent stated that she felt she had been treated

with respect but other resource parents expressed that they were not. One family stated to the interviewer

that they were intimidated by the agency and afraid or concerned about bringing issues to the agency’s

attention.

The agency provides pre-service training presented by a strong, knowledgeable trainer. There are many

opportunities for the families to attend training on a monthly basis. Training is offered inside and outside

of the agency. The agency has a monthly support group for resource families. Families are provided

surveys/questionnaires regarding training they might want or need to attend.

Although surveys were used to assess the needs of the families, there was no documented information to

determine if the training offered met the needs of the families.

Three families expressed great concern regarding the conduct of a foster care supervisor. In reviewing the

documentation and information provided, one of the complaints was found to be not valid.

One family expressed concern regarding how reimbursement for damages was handled by local agency

management.

Two families expressed concern regarding the agency’s recent decision/practice to body check children

under the age of 5 years old by removing their clothing.

51

Recommendation:

1. The agency should continue to build on the relationship with resource families by providing

training that supports best practices. Families should be assessed to determine if training met their

needs and it should be documented in the case record.

2. The removal of children and the reasons for the removal should be documented in more detail in

the resource family hard copy case record and in OASIS.

3. The agency should receive training regarding the use of contingency funds when damages have

occurred in the home.

4. The agency should evaluate the effectiveness and potential concerns of the harm of the continued

long term use of removing all of the clothing of children 5 years and younger during weekly home

visits. None of the other 22 local agencies in the Eastern region follow this practice.

RF Finding-06: TAFY UNIT

The TAFY program is a therapeutic foster parent program providing 24-hour specialized foster care for

children and adolescents residing in the community who have emotional and/or behavioral issues.

Currently the TAFY unit has one supervisor and eleven staff members. One staff member in this unit has

received family partnership facilitation training. Staff expressed there is a lack of appreciation and

recognition from management. Staff expressed there is a lack of appreciation or recognition for their

work by the supervisor and management. Full time staff expressed that additional support needed would

include lower caseloads, additional staff and the need for division and agency-wide staff meetings.

Staff interviews revealed that the TAFY Unit is in need of management support to build team morale.

Staff stated that they are micro-managed by the supervisor. Feedback is requested but not considered or

respected. It was openly communicated that decisions are made at the sole discretion of the supervisor.

The staff stated they believe that the citizens in the Virginia Beach community are not accepting of the

behaviors of some of the children in residential facility and group home placements.

Opportunities are made available for out of agency training for personal and professional growth and

development. However, staff would like more time to attend additional training. Staff participated in the

Regional Learning Cooperative. Staff members are committed to families, the agency and are supportive

of each other. The majority of staff attended Family Search and Special Family Engagement training

provided by the Casey Foundation and the VDSS Regional Consultant.

This unit has two types of homes: traditional (regular) resource homes and therapeutic homes under the

supervision of one person. All recruitments and trainings are processed through one direct supervisor

with some limited supervisory responsibilities provided by a Social Worker III assigned to the therapeutic

foster care program.

52

Recommendations:

The TAFY Unit should be separated into two units, creating a new supervisor’s position. When this new

position is created, the new supervisor should attend Guidance Training, Family Engagement, Family

Partnership Meeting training and Diligent Family Search training. The person selected should have

experience in foster care policy, training, recruitment, family assessment and experience in working with

residential youth.

With two supervisors in the TAFY Unit, it is recommended that one supervisor (with five staff) supervise

regular placements and the second supervisor (with five staff) supervise therapeutic placements. There

currently is one administrative staff person who should be able to provide support for both supervisors.

Even though staff has received training in family search and family engagement, the tools provided in

training are not demonstrated in daily practice and case management.

The current supervisor should receive some immediate, additional training in proper supervision, team

building and staff morale building.

A protocol should be developed between the TAFY Unit and the Residential Unit to recruit families for

foster youth currently in residential facilities or group homes.

Recruitment and Training:

Only general recruitment is done in the traditional home unit. Limited, child specific recruitment is done

in the TAFY unit.

The in-house, pre-service curriculum was reviewed and the reviewers attended the Orientation session and

Session 9 of the pre-service training.

A copy of the in-house pre-service curriculum was difficult to review because it did not have a script. It

appears to meet all the PRIDE competencies. However, the first two sessions described and showed very

graphic pictures of child abuse and neglect, very detailed information regarding CPS and negative profiles

of families. The training was not presented with a family-centered perspective and is not strength based.

The training does not support best practices for children and families. The training provided extensive

information on trauma and its impact on children.

One handout used during the training was titled “Toxic Families”. Another flyer provided to the

attendees stated “Foster Care is not a lifelong commitment” and another flyer indicated “Permanent Foster

Care” as a goal.

All of these handouts should be removed immediately and no longer used in training.

53

Recommendations:

1. Community trainings should be provided to educate the community in best practices for families

and youth, including family engagement, family partnership meetings and working with the

biological families.

2. The local agency should begin pre-service training for resource families with an overview of foster

care, an introduction to family engagement and local department information.

3. The current training curriculum for resource families, developed in-house, should be stopped

immediately and should no longer be used.

4. The agency must use standardized, copyrighted curriculum such as that offered locally by

PRIDE, MAPP or PATH.

5. Pre-service training should be observed in its entirety. New flyers for recruitment need to be

developed and approved by the VDSS Regional Consultant prior to use. Based on the number of

children in residential placements, the agency should conduct more child-specific and targeted

recruitment.

54

INTERVIEWS WITH CHILD WELFARE SUPERVISORS and CITY ATTORNEYS

Therese Wolf and Vernon Simmons, VDSS Interviewers

Agency Strengths Reported by Supervisors:

Child Protective Services (CPS) Supervisors all praised the skills and commitment of their staff

for getting a quality job done.

Mention also was made of using trainers from across the agency to do some in-service trainings in

specialized areas that supervisors felt were helpful.

Members of the child welfare administrative support team bring a wealth of knowledge and

experience to their respective jobs, including new ideas from other states and localities.

Safety:

VBDHS has made it a practice to give all valid CPS reports an R1 (within 24 hour response time)

to a high emphasis on safety planning with the aim of any needed placements being with family

identified resources (relatives) whenever possible.

Family Partnership Meetings:

Several CPS Supervisors mentioned that Family Partnership Meetings (FPMs) have started in

earnest within the previous six months. One supervisor commented that these meetings need to

increase in frequency and that more decisions need to be in FPMs and fewer in agency staffing.

Multiple CPS Supervisors mentioned that moving the FPM to before the “5 day” hearing has

resulted in helpful and positive results.

Foster care and adoption (Permanency) Supervisors identified Family Partnership Meetings as a

best practice and spoke highly of the results achieved with the limited number of FPMs conducted.

Data:

SafeMeasures data is used to monitor compliance with such things as monthly worker visits with

children and timely Termination of Parental Rights.

Virginia Beach Division of Family Services has a position that is dedicated to producing data

outcome measures for staff to use. There is a strong commitment to the use of data to ensure

compliance with all mandates.

Working Conditions:

Multiple CPS Supervisors commented the workloads in CPS Assessments and Investigations are

at a level that makes them not possible to achieve. One stated that it took at least 50 to 60 hours of

work every week to get the job done and there didn’t seem to be any relief in sight to that level of

work. Other comments regarding the caseload were that the emphasis in the units was on quantity

or work getting done with less regard for its effectiveness.

55

Concern was expressed that with workers putting in over 200 hours per month, there are increased

incidents of stress related illness and documented cases where workers were not able to attend to

their own families appropriately.

In multiple instances concern was expressed related to the agency policy to make reports valid that

did not meet validity standards; the supervisors apply a “what if…?” approach to the facts and

work to make reports valid using conjecture about facts rather than what is actually reported. This

results in an artificially inflated number of valid referrals.

Another example of emphasis on numbers is the requirement that only a certain number of CPS

Assessments/Investigations in any one worker’s caseload may remain open in OASIS at the

beginning of each month (this number has changed over time from 10 to 7). The discipline for

exceeding this number is a “write up” that is seen as the first step in a process of termination. This

has pushed staff to work extremely long hours toward the end of each month. Several Supervisors

referred to an incident in recent history where one or more staff stayed at the office until 4 a.m. to

get the proper number of closures, went home long enough to get cleaned up and eat breakfast and

then came back to work their normal day shift.

Permanency supervisors did not identify caseloads as a problem per se but did note that work

hours have increased with the advent of Family Partnership Meetings. Planning for and

documenting FPMs was identified as increasing worker time spent after hours with no

remuneration.

Supervision:

Several Supervisors expressed concerns that staff experience broad differences in policy

interpretation and documentation requirements from one supervisor to another. These

inconsistencies range from standards for validity to the required elements for documenting a

disposition.

Another area of inconsistency between units and supervisors is the degree that families in the

On-going Units are required to adhere to or complete Service Plans and are closed sometimes

before this is done.

Technology:

Several CPS and Permanency Supervisors mentioned the need for portable computers, i.e. laptops

or “Tough Books” that workers would be allowed to use in the field to reduce the need to rewrite

narrative information in OASIS. The provision of laptops several years ago does not have the

intended impact in that staff are forbidden to take laptops in the field, based on information

gathered during staff interviews.

Staff Turnover:

Several of the supervisors interviewed reported to the interviewers that, within two Investigation

Units, there had been over a 70% turnover in staff in the last 24 months. In addition to the added

work of having to hire and train replacement staff, these departures always meant that the already

high caseloads went even higher for the staff that remained.

56

Permanency supervisors noted that there are always positions vacant and that although this does

not have the same impact as CPS vacancies, it does create more work for current staff.

Morale:

Morale has suffered because of a child fatality, the resulting negative publicity and the feeling that

“it could have been me” in that case worker’s position, given the current heavy workload.

Morale also is low because of various issues already mentioned - high caseloads, the threat for

CPS workers of being written up around case closure requirements and inconsistencies between

various supervisors about how the job is to be accomplished.

There is a pervasive conviction that this agency regularly assigns what are considered invalid CPS

reports on the basis of “what if” something additional happens in the family, rather than according

to generally held interpretation of guidance and law.

Multiple supervisors from both CPS and Permanency mentioned that morale was high when the

staff in their unit was pulling together and helping each other “get the job done”.

Permanency Supervisors noted morale suffers due to long work hours and a sense that no matter

what a worker does, there is a lack of support from the court system. Supervisors believe workers

also do not feel heard by the division Director and the Director of the VBDHS, commonly referred

to as “the Administration”.

Safety of staff and lack of assistance (e.g. technology or case aides) to make documentation easier

is creating low morale as well.

Community Relationships/Partners:

Legal System:

A significant number of CPS and Permanency Supervisors expressed concern that their workers’

opinions were not respected in Court and that far too often the Court and the City Attorney would

converse on the petition being heard and come up with dispositions of the hearing that had no

resemblance to what the Agency was seeking with the petition. Others described similar concerns

that the workers lacked respect and credibility in Court.

Permanency Supervisors had a sense that the Administration has tried to address this problem

through a number of bridging activities with the court (e.g., work with Casey Family Services; use

of a court checklist for children’s educational progress) and through the Best Practice Courts

Meetings but to no avail.

The problem with the courts is not seen as one particular judge or in a particular situation but

rather is seen as more pervasive.

The Supervisors described an improving relationship with the Police Department.

The Permanency Supervisors expressed concern that the community is not tolerant of foster care

children and that they (VBDHS) need increased resources to change this attitude (i.e., more homes

in the community, greater funding and recognition and support from city council of these children

needing to be in their community). The fact that Virginia Beach is a “resort city” is believed to

affect how social services and foster children are seen.

57

Interviews with Staff at the City Attorney’s Office:

Discussions with staff at the Office of the City Attorney turned up several concerns about CPS.

The top concern was described as a disconnect between line staff and supervisors. With

regularity, the line staff brings cases they don’t actually believe meet the criteria for legal action

but the supervisors do and the worker has no choice. Workers were described as being more in

tune with the “totality” of evidence where supervisors react (overly) to prima facie evidence

“…despite questions of credibility”. Supervisors were said to regularly over react and act out of

fear of possibilities rather than on current facts.

Administration (VBDHS Director and Division Director):

The Administration was described by supervisors as being out of touch with the work done at the

line level and that this results in those in charge having little idea about the impact of their

decisions.

It was reported that the “administration” seems more concerned about numbers than about

worker’s welfare or at times, best practice.

The Administration is also reported as being distant and unresponsive. This is reported to result in

lack of clarity about the agency’s goals and direction.

It was stated that the position of Director for Adult and Family Services is spread over too broad

an area and this detracts from her effectiveness.

The division Director is described as not being engaged in the work of line staff and has not been

accessible despite commitments to attend Unit Meetings.

Supervisors reported that the Division of Adult and Family Services never meets as a Division.

DATA and Outcomes:

The use of data to measure compliance in all areas is both strength and an area of concern for

VBDHS. Both CPS and Permanency supervisors noted that data is used to measure compliance

with such things as monthly worker visits and time to Termination of Parental Rights. While data

as a compliance measure is a valid use of the numbers, no one has identified using data to consider

program effectiveness, to develop program improvements or to track program outcomes related to

safety, permanency and well-being.

One supervisor noted that despite the data showing poor outcomes in some areas such as

permanency, the fact that older youth stay in touch with their social workers is indicative of the

permanent connections that some youth have developed.

It is significant that in no supervisor interview did a supervisor discuss how they use the data of

SafeMeasures to manage their programs to increase success for clients.

58

Major Concerns:

It appears that there is discord in the Administrative team and it affects the vision and direction of

the agency.

There is a disconnect between how the Director of the VBDHS understands certain relationships

in the agency and how staff see those relationships. As an example, the Director stated he

believed the relationship with the JDR Judges was “strong” and that they are supportive of staff.

This is the opposite of the feedback received from the child welfare supervisors who articulated a

lack of judicial support and a sense of staff being treated as less than professional.

The Director of the Adult and Family Services division has 18 direct reports – far too many.

The perception by the agency, both staff and some supervisors, is that the agency is not perceived

well by the community which has serious implications for community collaborations and

resources. Supervisors and staff who acknowledged this perception also did not voice a plan for

the agency to address this perception and make improvements. There is a sense that this

perception, real or imagined, cannot be changed.

The focus of the child welfare division is less on permanency for older youth and more on self-

sufficiency. When asked about the outcomes that show less than expected movement of children

to permanency, one supervisor stated that more than one-half of the children in foster care are over

the age of 13 and it is not possible to recruit homes to “take older kids.” This attitude is consistent

with the supervisor’s comment that social work staff often are the “permanent connection” for

older youth who have left care.

Almost all CPS Supervisors identified high caseloads as the number one concern of their staff.

Concerns regarding the impact of the high caseloads ranged from high turnover to staff actually

experiencing traumatic stress related to the job and a clear inability to balance work and home life.

A number of concerns were noted by the Permanency Supervisors but the relationship with the

court and the lack of support for the agency’s planning for children in care was the most noted

concern. How this relationship negatively affects workers’ sense of the value of their work and

their profession was highlighted repeatedly.

The second most noted concern was the lack of communication with the Administration and a

sense of “secrecy” around issues such as sharing information about a child fatality case. While

recognizing that all information cannot be shared, the lack of sharing any information at all breeds

a sense of low morale.

59

INTERVIEW WITH THE CHIEF JUDGE, VIRGINIA BEACH JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC

RELATIONS COURT

Rita Katzman and Therese Wolf, VDSS Interviewers

Chief Judge Randall Blow indicated that, from his perspective, the working relationship with the VBDHS

is excellent. Quarterly meetings are held with the Director of the Adult and Family Services Division and

the city attorney to discuss issues that come up. The meetings were said to be very productive.

When asked for areas needing improvement related to VBDHS staff’s work or their professional

relationship with the Court, the Judge responded that workers strive to do what is in the best interest of

the child and want to move toward adoption – if a child placed in foster care is doing well in the

placement. The law stresses reunification and the court wants to give the parents every chance. This may

be a source of frustration for the workers, who truly believe that their recommendation is in the best

interest of the child.

Permanency planning hearings are held timely through the help of the city attorney. Exceptions occur due

to the scheduling or availability of the various attorneys representing various parties – the agency, GAL,

mother, father, etc.

Judge Blow felt that residential facility placements are only used when there are no alternatives for the

child. When a TFC placement is unable to handle or care for the child, a residential setting could provide

the child with more structure. He stated that he believes the child welfare staff share this philosophy and

only suggest residential facility placement as a last resort.

When asked about local agency workers submitting recommendations of permanent foster care to be

approved by the Court without having an identified family which has agreed to be a permanent foster care

parent for the child, and that permanent foster care also has been recommended and approved for children

placed in residential facilities/group home, the Judge did not see this as a problem (although this practice

is contrary to state Code requirements) and stated that he would question workers if this was the case. He

indicated that he does not “rubber stamp” the decision/recommendation of the worker. If the agency,

GAL, city attorney and CASA agree, it is usually a better outcome for the family.

Overall, the Judge believes that the social workers are doing a good job, the best they can within the

resources they have. When asked to provide suggestions to improve outcomes for the families and

children that come before the Court, the Judge thought more social workers and lower caseloads could

improve outcomes by providing workers with more time to spend with each child.

60

INTERVIEWS WITH CITY MANAGER, VBDHS DIRECTOR, VBDHS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

CHILD WELFARE DIVISION DIRECTOR and IT MANAGER

Therese Wolf and Vernon Simmons, VDSS Interviewers

This is a summary of the results of the interviews of the above noted persons and it addresses

specific themes that emerged in the interviews.

Agency Morale:

VBDHS has gone through significant changes in the last several years. Two city agencies were

merged into one large agency and this required resolving massive differences in technology and

agency functioning. Two individuals interviewed noted that there continues to be resistance at the

agency in moving to a performance management model and quality improvement culture of

management. The lack of agreement makes such resistance problematic for the VBDHS.

All individuals interviewed noted that there is divisiveness in the agency. Some of the individuals

were more open about discussing the details of this aspect of the local agency than others.

Although one individual interviewed opted not to discuss the professional relationship between

upper level administrators in detail, that person did note that staff do not feel supported by most of

the upper level administrators and that staff are aware of the tension that exists between the

VBDHS Director and the Director of the Adult and Family Services division. It was expressed that

this “tension” appears to be interfering with making organizational decisions (see the Work Force

section that follows).

Practice and Data Issues:

Agency administrators interviewed identified problems in recruiting foster homes. It was

expressed that this is one reason why the VBDHS has such a high number of youth in congregate

care settings. Another reason given was a lack of homes that want to take teenagers and a third

reason given was the increase in the numbers of people coming to the VBDHS for services. No

plans for addressing these problems with foster home recruitment were identified.

It is clear from those interviewed that the VBDHS has an extensive program of services for older

youth that is focused on developing skills to achieve independence. Note: As important as such

programming is, without a plan to recruit foster homes for older youth these independent

living services are inadequate as they do not include the necessary emphasis on permanent

adult connections.

The VBDHS has a staff position devoted to data. However, the data is used to assess compliance

with required outcomes (e.g., monthly worker visits with children in foster care) and there is no

mention of how the data is or can be used to assess quality of service delivery or performance.

Two people interviewed discussed the need to look at quality outcomes. The use of data to guide

performance needs improvement. Note: The VBDHS Director needs to make management by

data a more critical component of practice at the VBDHS.

61

Work Force/ Work Loads:

Staff workload, relationships, available resources and reallocation of staff resources were all

mentioned as critical areas for improving performance at the VBDHS. It was noted that some units

have very small caseloads (6-7 cases were mentioned) and others carry much higher case loads

(CPS was mentioned). In addition, the staff in the adoption unit is seen by some staff as

mistrusting of the local agency as they “ believe that their files should be kept confidential from

everyone.”

The Director of the Adult and Families division has 18 direct reports and approximately 105 staff

under her purview. Although this structure was discussed as being unrealistic, no changes have

been made and none were offered. Two individuals interviewed noted the importance of breaking

out the responsibilities of this one administrator into more manageable units.

Note: The needed changes in organizational structure of the Child Welfare division is a

necessary prerequisite to assessing and developing equitable caseload standards and

determining how staff can be reallocated among units.

Community Relationships:

Three people interviewed stated that the VBDHS has good relationships with the community

including the Judges, legal representatives and community boards.

Several people interviewed stated that the VBDHS has a perception that their community is

litigious and this concern, in large measure, guides how the staff at the VBDHS makes decisions

and communicates/deals with the community at large.

62

EMPLOYEE SURVEY

Content and Methodology:

The Eastern Regional Office of the VDSS sent an employee survey to 105 employees of the Virginia

Beach Department of Human Services Child Welfare Division. Seventy-nine out of one hundred five

employees (75%) responded to the electronic survey.

The electronic survey included 41 specific questions and targeted the following major areas:

Culture and Work Environment

Staffing in Your Work Area

Work Performance

Leadership

Training and Development

Employees were asked to rate each question based on the following rating scale:

1 = Strongly Disagree

2 = Somewhat Disagree

3 = Somewhat Agree

4 = Strongly Agree

0 = No answer (these responses were not included in the averages)

Staff were also asked to identify three strengths of the agency and three suggestions to improve agency

operations. Staff were able to provide additional comments or suggestions. All respondents were

guaranteed confidentiality. Therefore, the actual responses are not included in this report. For

informational and management purposes, we have included summaries of responses not linked to

individual staff members.

The employees’ responses to the 41 survey questions were averaged. The average total score of survey

questions 1 through 41 is 2.84 out of a possible 4.0.

Responses below a “3” rating should be considered as needing immediate attention

and/or improvement and should be part of an overall improvement/corrective action

plan to be developed by the Director of the local agency.

63

Survey Reponses listed in Question Number Order Average Score

Count

1 Our working atmosphere is friendly and professional. 2.88 78

2 There is healthy, two-way communication here. 2.60 78

3 I receive enough information to make decisions and perform my job. 3.14 78

4 Management supports the changes for overall performance improvement. 2.58 71

5 Employees support overall performance improvement. 2.78 74

6 I am trusted to perform the work that is assigned to me. 3.34 79

7 My coworkers are cooperative and willing to help with the work. 3.46 78

8 Our facility is safe. 2.77 78

9 I have the tools I need to perform my job. 3.05 75

10 Morale in the office is generally high. 1.94 78

11 There are a sufficient number of employees to perform the work. 1.67 78

12 Employees I deal with perform effectively in their positions. 2.94 72

13 Managers/supervisors I deal with perform effectively in their positions. 2.92 73

14 There is a back-up plan for emergencies, vacancies, and absences. 2.28 74

15 I understand my job/position. 3.71 79

16 I have a copy of my position description. 3.51 75

17 I am formally evaluated on a regular basis. 3.22 74

18 I am provided an opportunity to improve my performance problems/challenges. 3.27 73

19 I am provided an opportunity to work through relationship issue with my coworkers. 2.99 69

20 I am rewarded and recognized when I meet or exceed my performance expectations. 2.38 74

21 I am given the responsibility and the authority to successfully complete the job. 3.21 78

22 I have enough time to complete my workload in accordance with timeframes allocated.

2.34 76

23 I have enough time to take on additional responsibilities. 1.91 76

24 My performance is evaluated against criteria that make sense for my job responsibilities.

2.79 75

25 I know what our mission or purpose is for this agency. 3.58 79

26 Management established clear goals and objectives for our agency. 2.83 78

27 Management makes an effort to create a positive & motivational working environment.

2.27 79

28 Management works with employees to streamline processes and procedures. 2.12 78

29 I have a good working relationship with my supervisor. 3.32 79

30 I feel comfortable talking with my supervisor about any work related issues. 3.20 79

31 My supervisor provides the guidance, resources, and tools that I need to do my work. 3.13 79

32 My supervisor considers my input on decisions being made for my work area. 3.24 76

33 State DSS employees are helpful and professional when I call them for help. 3.31 61

34 I receive the training I need to do my job and to keep up with changes. 2.91 77

35 The training I have participated in was organized, practical, and worthwhile. 3.06 78

36 I am pleased with the career opportunities here. 2.23 74

37 The management team is provided with leadership training 2.59 51

38 I developed a learning plan with my supervisor to enhance my development. 2.69 68

39 I am cross-trained in other areas of the agency. 2.17 72

40 My supervisor and I maintain a record on my training history. 3.21 75

41 Employees have an equal opportunity for training and development. 2.78 74

64

Employee Survey Questions Receiving the Ten Highest Scores: Avg Count

I understand my job/position. 3.71 79

I know what our mission or purpose is for this agency. 3.58 79

I have a copy of my position description. 3.51 75

My coworkers are cooperative and willing to help with the work. 3.46 78

I am trusted to perform the work that is assigned to me. 3.34 79

I have a good working relationship with my supervisor. 3.32 79

State DSS employees are helpful and professional when I call them for help. 3.31 61

I am provided an opportunity to improve my performance problems/challenges. 3.27 73

My supervisor considers my input on decisions being made for my work area. 3.24 76

I am formally evaluated on a regular basis. 3.22 74

Employee Survey Questions Receiving the Ten Lowest Scores: Avg Count

There are a sufficient number of employees to perform the work. 1.67 78

I have enough time to take on additional responsibilities. 1.91 76

Morale in the office is generally high. 1.94 78

Management works with the employees to streamline processes and procedures. 2.12 78

I am cross-trained in other areas of the agency. 2.17 72

I am pleased with the career opportunities here. 2.23 74

Management makes an effort to create a positive & motivational working environment. 2.27 79

There is a back-up plan for emergencies, vacancies and absences. 2.28 74

I have enough time to complete my workload in accordance with timeframes allocated 2.34 76

I am rewarded and recognized when I meet or exceed my performance expectations. 2.38 74

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

1.75

2.00

2.25

2.50

2.75

3.00

3.25

3.50

3.75

4.00

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Av

era

ge

Employee

Average Score by Employee Average = 2.84

65

Average Survey Reponses by Category Average Score Count

Culture and Work Environment

1 Our working atmosphere is friendly and professional. 2.88 78

2 There is healthy, two-way communication here. 2.60 78

3 I receive enough information to make decisions and perform my job. 3.14 78

4 Management supports the changes for overall performance improvement. 2.58 71

5 Employees support overall performance improvement. 2.78 74

6 I am trusted to perform the work that is assigned to me. 3.34 79

7 My coworkers are cooperative and willing to help with the work. 3.46 78

8 Our facility is safe. 2.77 78

9 I have the tools I need to perform my job. 3.05 75

10 Morale in the office is generally high. 1.94 78

Category Average Score 2.86

Staffing in your Work Area

11 There are a sufficient number of employees to perform the work. 1.67 78

12 Employees I deal with perform effectively in their positions. 2.94 72

13 Managers/supervisors I deal with perform effectively in their positions. 2.92 73

14 There is a back-up plan for emergencies, vacancies, and absences. 2.28 74

Category Average Score 2.44

Work Performance

15 I understand my job/position. 3.71 79

16 I have a copy of my position description. 3.51 75

17 I am formally evaluated on a regular basis. 3.22 74

18 I am provided an opportunity to improve my performance problems/challenges. 3.27 73

19 I am provided an opportunity to work through relationship issue with my coworkers. 2.99 69

20

I am rewarded and recognized when I meet or exceed my performance

expectations. 2.38 74

21 I am given the responsibility and the authority to successfully complete the job. 3.21 78

22

I have enough time to complete my workload in accordance with timeframes

allocated. 2.34 76

23 I have enough time to take on additional responsibilities. 1.91 76

24

My performance is evaluated against criteria that make sense for my job

responsibilities. 2.79 75

Category Average Score 2.93

66

Leadership

Average Score Count

25 I know what our mission or purpose is for this agency. 3.58 79

26 Management established clear goals and objectives for our agency. 2.83 78

27 Management makes an effort to create a positive & motivational working environment. 2.27 79

28 Management works with employees to streamline processes and procedures. 2.12 78

29 I have a good working relationship with my supervisor. 3.32 79

30 I feel comfortable talking with my supervisor about any work related issues. 3.20 79

31 My supervisor provides the guidance, resources, and tools that I need to do my work. 3.13 79

32 My supervisor considers my input on decisions being made for my work area. 3.24 76

33 State DSS employees are helpful and professional when I call them for help. 3.31 61

Category Average Score 2.99

Training and Development

34 I receive the training I need to do my job and to keep up with changes. 2.91 77

35 The training I have participated in was organized, practical, and worthwhile. 3.06 78

36 I am pleased with the career opportunities here. 2.23 74

37 The management team is provided with leadership training 2.59 51

38 I developed a learning plan with my supervisor to enhance my development. 2.69 68

39 I am cross-trained in other areas of the agency. 2.17 72

40 My supervisor and I maintain a record on my training history. 3.21 75

41 Employees have an equal opportunity for training and development. 2.78 74

Category Average Score 2.72

67

QUESTION # 42 – IDENTIFY THREE STRENGTHS OF THE AGENCY

67 staff responding to the employee survey provided responses to this question. Not all of those

responding provided 3 strengths. The following listing identifies and provides some of the employee

comments made for the top four areas receiving comments, listed in order of greatest number of

comments:

1. The overall work environment: Comments included: friendly; co-operative; supportive staff;

teamwork; flexible; understanding and helpful to one another; resources and tools are

abundant; encouragement; commitment to work; manage large volume of work; camaraderie;

willing to help; adequate work space; high standards; communication; new computers (64

comments)

2. Employees of the agency: dedicated; motivated; professional; excellent workers; dependable;

educated; experienced; knowledgeable; quality; caring; well organized (30 comments)

3. Leadership: effective; management; delegating; clear chain of command; available; reliable;

helpful; understanding; encouraging; trustworthy; constructive criticism; does not micro-

managed; strong relationships; advocates; open. (28 comments)

4. Commitment to the safety of families, goals, and job responsibilities: welfare of the child;

make appropriate safety plans; diligent in efforts to protect children; committed to helping

children; opportunity to empower families; goal of keeping children safe and preserving

families is clear; concern for families; ensure safety of children; work hard to re-unify

families; invested in the mission of the agency; go above and beyond to protect children and

help families improve functioning; commitment to their work to meet the needs; ensure

children are safe in their home (22 comments)

QUESTION # 43 – IDENTIFY THREE THINGS TO IMPROVE AGENCY

OPERATION AND/OR SERVICE DELIVERY

68 out of 79 staff responding to the employee survey provided responses to this question. The following

listing identifies the top five areas receiving comments, listed in order of greatest number of comments.

Wording was taken from the employees’ comments:

1. Process Improvements: Staying organized; potential position re-alignments; improved

technological access; improved screening of CPS cases; respond to valid complaints of

abuse/neglect meeting definition in policy/guidelines; changes made in how we transfer cases in

prevention and ongoing units; more consistency needed with policies and procedures; more

realistic approach to managing caseloads efficiently; incorporate ways to minimize pressures to

prevent predictable performance issues; deadlines are not able to be met; refrain from assigning

invalid cases; focus should not be on numbers; intrudes upon families with

investigations/assessments that should be invalid; clearly define referral validation procedures;

allow remote access; quickly staff cases; inconsistent workloads; streamline paperwork; eliminate

redundancy; ensure services are completed before transferring case; discontinue overdue policy;

incorporate new ideas and action to run smoother (44 comments)

68

2. Need for additional workers: need more line workers; smaller caseloads; additional staff to

manage cases (29 comments)

3. Leadership: Supervisors need to be more available, more supportive of workers, look at ways to

assist in job demands, trust workers, set realistic expectations, advocate for staff, be less punitive,

have unified policies; administration needs to be visible; does not care that CPS has a huge

turnover; more understanding regarding work deadlines; CPS supervisors need to be more

available at the office; abide by policy and not make up their own; less punitive and hinder the

families; need a climate of guidance through Child Welfare Policy and State code; eliminate

favoritism (20 comments)

4. Training: Social work training for employees and supervisors; take advantage of training; Family

Engagement training learning plan; formal supervisory training; practical training; train

administrators in how to speak to staff; cross training; training for case managers; development of

curriculum for a degree in CPS Investigations and Assessments; require a writing skills course;

development of a training program; in-house mandatory training in casework practice relevant to

service planning and delivery; how to manage difficult situations and clients (16 comments)

5. Communication: increase communication between Foster Care and CPS regarding transfer of

cases; have regular joint meetings to share information between programs areas and units; open

communication at all levels of staff; constant change and never clear as to current protocol;

workers kept out of the loop; decisions need to be informed and agreed upon; need to be an agency

united; open forum when discussing cases; have team building exercise; improve communication

between staff and administration (15 comments)

69

QUESTION # 44- OTHER COMMENTS/SUGGESTIONS

45 out of 79 staff responded to this question. Several of the comments/suggestions were very lengthy.

Similar themes were consolidated and four or more similar responses are categorized below:

9% 9%

11% 11%

13% 13% 13% 13% 13%

16% 16% 16% 16% 16% 16%

18% 20% 20%

22% 22% 22%

27% 27%

29%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Director is not involved Need recognition from supervisors

Need support from Supervisors Communication by Director/ Administration is minimal

Decisions are made based on supervisors bias Need Training/Trainers/Time to attend training

Fear of retaliation Pay raises/promotions/positive affirmation

No input from workers Low Morale

Issues with 2 CPS trainers Need to commit to change/best practice

Workers are made to force families to accept services Documentation standards are not consistent among supvr

Poor Leadership/Management # of cases are too high

Overtime Issues Assign Valid Cases

Amount of stress in CPS Punished for late cases

High Turnover Supervisors need to close cases timely

Expectations for CPS workers are unrealistic Need additional staff

Percent of staff responses

Additional Comments

70

Appendix 1

Virginia Children’s Services Practice Model

The Virginia Children's Services System Practice Model sets forth a vision for the services that are delivered by all child serving agencies across the Commonwealth, especially the Departments of Social Services, Juvenile Justice, Education, Behavioral Health and Developmental Services and the Office of Comprehensive Services. The practice model is central to our decision making; present in all of our meetings; and in every interaction that we have with a child or family. Decisions that are based on the practice model will be supported and championed. Guided by this model, our process to continuously improve services for children and families will be rooted in the best of practices, the most accurate and current data available, and with the safety and well-being of children and families as the fixed center of our work.

We believe that all children and communities deserve to be safe.

1. Safety comes first. Every child has the right to live in a safe home, attend a safe school and live in a safe community. Ensuring safety requires a collaborative effort among family, agency staff, and the community. 2. We value family strengths, perspectives, goals, and plans as central to creating and maintaining child safety, and recognize that removal from home is not the only way to ensure child or community safety. 3. In our response to safety and risk concerns, we reach factually supported conclusions in a timely and thorough manner. 4. Participation of parents, children, extended family, and community stakeholders is a necessary component in assuring safety. 5. We separate caregivers who present a threat to safety from children in need of protection. When court action is necessary to make a child safe, we use our authority with respect and sensitivity.

We believe in family, child, and youth-driven practice.

1. Children and families have the right to have a say in what happens to them and will be treated with dignity and respect. The voices of children, youth and parents are heard, valued, and considered in the decision-making regarding safety, permanency, well-being as well as in service and educational planning and in placement decisions. . 2. Each individual’s right to self-determination will be respected within the limits of established community standards and laws. 3. We recognize that family members are the experts about their own families. It is our responsibility to understand children, youth, and families within the context of their own family rules, traditions, history, and culture. 4. Children have a right to connections with their biological family and other caring adults with whom they have developed emotional ties. 5. We engage families in a deliberate manner. Through collaboration with families, we develop and implement creative, individual solutions that build on their strengths to meet their needs. Engagement is the primary door through which we help youth and families make positive changes.

71

We believe that children do best when raised in families.

1. Children should be reared by their families whenever possible. 2. Keeping children and families together and preventing entry into any type of out of home placement is the best possible use of resources. 3. Children are best served when we provide their families with the supports necessary to raise them safely. Services to preserve the family unit and prevent family disruption are family-focused, child centered, and community-based. 4. People can and do make positive changes. The past does not necessarily limit their potential. 5. When children cannot live safely with their families, the first consideration for placement will be with kinship connections capable of providing a safe and nurturing home. We value the resources within extended family networks and are committed to seeking them out. 6. When placement outside the extended family is necessary, we encourage healthy social development by supporting placements that promote family, sibling and community connections. 7. Children’s needs are best served in a family that is committed to the child. 8. Placements in non-family settings should be temporary, should focus on individual children’s needs, and should prepare them for return to family and community life.

We believe that all children and youth need and deserve a permanent family.

1. Lifelong family connections are crucial for children and adults. It is our responsibility to promote and preserve kinship, sibling and community connections for each child. We value past, present, and future relationships that consider the child’s hopes and wishes. 2. Permanency is best achieved through a legal relationship such as parental custody, adoption, kinship care or guardianship. Placement stability is not permanency. 3. Planning for children is focused on the goal of preserving their family, reunifying their family, or achieving permanency with another family. 4. Permanency planning for children begins at the first contact with the children’s services system. We proceed with a sense of urgency until permanency is achieved. We support families after permanency to ensure that family connections are stable.

We believe in partnering with others to support child and family success in a system that is family

focused, child-centered, and community-based.

1. We are committed to aligning our system with what is best for children, youth, and families.

- Our organizations, consistent with this practice model, are focused on providing supports to families in raising children. The practice model should guide all of the work that we do. In addition to practice alignment, infrastructure and resources must be aligned with the model. For example, training, policy, technical assistance and other supports must reinforce the model. - We take responsibility for open communication, accountability, and transparency at all levels of our system and across all agencies. We share success stories and best practices to promote learning within and across communities and share challenges and lessons learned to make better decisions. - Community support is crucial for families in raising children.

72

2. We are committed to working across agencies, stakeholder groups, and communities to improve outcomes for the children, youth, and families we serve.

- Services to families must be delivered as part of a total system with cooperation, coordination, and collaboration occurring among families, service providers and community stakeholders. - All stakeholders share responsibility for child safety, permanence and well-being. As a system, we will identify and engage stakeholders and community members around our practice model to help children and families achieve success in life; safety; life in the community; family based placements; and life-long family connections. - We will communicate clearly and often with stakeholders and community members. Our communication must reinforce the belief that children and youth belong in family and community settings and that system resources must be allocated in a manner consistent with that belief.

3. We are committed to working collaboratively to ensure that children with disabilities receive the supports necessary to enable them to receive their special education services within the public schools. We will collaboratively plan for children with disabilities who are struggling in public school settings to identify services that may prevent the need for private school placements, recognizing that the provision of such services will maximize the potential for these children to remain with their families and within their communities.

We believe that how we do our work is as important as the work we do.

1. The people who do this work are our most important asset. Children and families deserve trained, skillful professionals to engage and assist them. We strive to build a workforce that works in alignment with our practice model. They are supported in this effort through open dialogue, clear policy, excellent training and supervision, formal and informal performance evaluation and appropriate resource allocation. 2. As with families, we look for strengths in our organization. We are responsible for creating and maintaining a supportive working and learning environment and for open, respectful communication, collaboration, and accountability at all levels. 3. Our organizations are focused on providing high quality, timely, efficient, and effective services. 4. Relationships and communication among staff, children, families, and community providers are conducted with genuineness, empathy, and respect. 5. The practice of collecting and sharing data and information is a non-negotiable part of how we continually learn and improve. We will use data to inform management, improve practice, measure effectiveness and guide policy decisions. We must strive to align our laws so that collaboration and sharing of data can be achieved to better support our children and families 6. As we work with children, families, and their teams, we clearly share with them our purpose, role, concerns, decisions, and responsibility.

73